Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Patient Care (Birmingham)

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last visited an NHS hospital in Birmingham to discuss patient care. [7491]

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): My right hon. Friend visited Good Hope Hospital NHS trust Sutton Coldfield last Friday, when he met staff and patients.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that people in hospital may get too much care because their discharge is delayed by a lack of adequate, immediately available community care facilities? Will he study carefully the plans and proposals of a qualified constituent of mine that I sent him before Christmas? They suggest a fast-track approach with perhaps a small part of the budget being given to health service discharge planners to help people move more quickly out of acute beds so that there would be no bed-blocking. That would save the NHS a fortune, help people to be discharged more quickly and release more beds for acute care.

Mr. Malone: I read with great care the letter that the hon. Gentleman's constituent sent him. It contained a number of very practical proposals, all of which, fortunately, need no change to national policy to be implemented. I, too, happened to be in the Birmingham area on Friday and travelled to Nuneaton, where I saw a hospital at which such a partnership was in action and social services had a halfway-home ward in which people were able to step down and get rehabilitation treatment before they went into the community. The NHS executive published a book in 1984 that gave guidance on discharge. Of course, we are always happy to learn where best practice tells us that we can do better, but with local action I believe that we can make a great impact on the problem. The hon. Gentleman's constituent made some very valid points on that.

Sir Norman Fowler: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the action that he is taking to improve accident and emergency services at Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield? However, I hope that he will also recognise that a new admission ward is needed and that, if one was introduced, it would make long waits on trolleys a thing of the past. I hope that he will consider that.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging the progress that has been made at Good Hope hospital, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able on Friday to be at a press conference where it was announced that 65 beds were being brought back into service. That was a step in the right direction. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the proposals put forward by the trust. I understand that they are being evaluated by the regional health authority, which I expect to look rigorously at the proposals and do what it can constructively to help to alleviate the problem at Good Hope.

Mr. Burden: While I welcome the announcement on beds at Good Hope, when will the Minister recognise that Birmingham is being short-changed on national health service spending and the fact that the 1.1 per cent. increase on spending announced by the Minister before Christmas amounts to only 0.5 per cent. in Birmingham? That will result in cuts in the community facilities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and could make the difference as to whether 75 community psychiatric nurses are in post. When will he do something about that?

Mr. Malone: I saw with some interest the proposal put forward by the local community health council, which seemed to suggest that there was underfunding in Birmingham of some 20 per cent. However, there is, of course, an equitable weighted capitation process in England that allocates funds. I should like to discover from the hon. Gentleman some time whether he is saying that he is committed to undoing the weighted capitation system. Can his Front Benchers commit his party to doing that in a way that would automatically bring more funds to bear in Birmingham? Unless he is undertaking to do so, his observation is entirely irrelevant. I would have hoped that what he might rather have done is to look at the forthcoming merger between the two Birmingham health authorities, which will immediately result in £1.2 million of savings, which will be available for added patient care.

Psychiatric Community Nurses

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of psychiatric community nurses since 1979. [7492]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): The number of whole-time equivalent nurses working in the community psychiatric area has increased from 1,080 in 1981, which is the earliest year for which figures are available, to 4,760 in 1994, an increase of 340 per cent.

Mr. Atkinson: While I think that my hon. Friend and his predecessor should be given full credit for that impressive increase, which clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to the mentally ill, does he agree that his Department's report into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people provides even more evidence that there are still not enough psychiatric community nurses to go round to give that essential face-to-face contact with patients—especially schizophrenia patients—to make a success of our community care approach?
In the light of the patients charter for the mentally ill, which our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced, can my hon. Friend now announce a further substantial increase in the number of psychiatric community nurses?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend has referred to the confidential inquiry report, which was set against the background of a decreasing proportion of homicides committed by mentally ill people.
Any homicide or act of violence against oneself or somebody else is a matter of concern to us, which is why we asked the inquiry to investigate whether there are common threads that run through such cases. The thread it highlighted is professionals' failure, in some cases, to communicate with each other. That observation ties in with the requirements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has placed on every health authority in the country to report to us on the state of the care programme, the mix of beds and community services and the plans that they have in each case to correct any shortcomings.
We shall look carefully at all those programmes to ensure that the service in every district is up to the standard that we know exists in the best districts.

Dr. Wright: How does the Minister's reply relate to the case of my constituent, Dylan Thomas Jones, a mentally ill patient about whom I wrote to every agency that was involved in his case? I told them that he was likely to kill either himself or someone else unless the most urgent action was taken. A few weeks ago, he killed himself. I wrote to the Department of Health to say that that might happen.
May I tell the Minister that, as far as the people of this country are concerned, including Mr. Jones' mother, community care for that category of patient has become a euphemism for the most monstrous neglect? Instead of waiting for another inquiry or another such death, will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do about the problem?

Mr. Bowis: That case is a tragedy, and we feel for the family or families concerned. After any such case, the Department of Health and the national health service order a full investigation into what has gone wrong. The lessons learnt are fed into the programming and planning of our mental health services. I can make that pledge, today and always, to the hon. Gentleman.
In return, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to acknowledge the real progress made in the care and treatment of mentally ill people, which is much more humane than it was some decades ago. Dedicated doctors, nurses and social workers are working with families and individuals to make that possible. When Professor Norman Sartorius, the distinguished president of the World Psychiatry Association, came to Britain, he said:
Our recent developments in improving mental health services will ensure that the UK continues to lead the world in this area".
We should listen to that lesson, learn from it, and pay tribute to the work of our professionals, rather than downgrade them and abuse them every time we speak in the House on a particular case.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on developing the community psychiatric nurse

programme. Is he aware that there are times when that programme plays a crucial role in rescuing someone who is suffering from mental illness and ensuring that he reaches the appropriate help in time? Does he agree that his programme has now developed fourfold since the Government came to power? That is a far cry from the Labour party, which talked and talked, but did nothing.

Mr. Bowls: My hon. Friend is right—the programme has developed since those days because the Government have made it a priority. My hon. Friend is also right to pay particular attention to psychiatric nurses working in the community and to others who act as the key workers in each case. Every patient who is discharged from hospital care or the mental health services should have a care programme around him or her, monitored and led by the key worker who is often a nurse and who is able to spot things when they are going wrong and alert the necessary professionals to help the individual get through the crisis that he or she may be suffering. If we work towards that end, we shall have a service that is in the best interests of both patients and the wider community.

Community Care

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of community care provision. [7493]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Since April 1993, the Department of Health has monitored the implementation of the community care reforms. In addition, the social services inspectorate carries out regular inspections, statistics are regularly collected and published, and longer-term research is in hand to evaluate the progress of the policy.

Mr. Hardy: While I pay tribute to the dedication of the medical and nursing staff engaged in the sector, would not they—and does not the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—point to serious and growing need? May we have an assurance not only that the Government are pledged to maintain supervision, but that they will provide more psychiatric hospital beds and improve staffing to assist those at the sharp end of sometimes horrifying and intensifying need?

Mr. Dorrell: The House can certainly have the assurance that we shall continue to invest to ensure that adequate, up-to-date hospital space is available for those with acute hospital needs who are mentally ill. In addition, we have already announced our intention to introduce a mental health patients charter that will define the standards that patients are entitled to expect from the mental health services. I also announced at the time of the Budget a package that will provide an extra £50 million of new money for the delivery of mental health services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those steps.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the resources that the Government have devoted to all community care services have more than doubled in only five years and have been increased by 9 per cent. this year over last year?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fast rate of growth in the resources available for the community care of elderly people. Indeed, my hon. Friend understates the scale of the public resources


committed by the Government to care for elderly people. The figure in 1979 was £851 million in total—almost all of it was spent by local authorities. In today's values, that figure is £2.5 billion. The figure that we, local authorities and the Department of Social Security are spending this year is just over £7 billion. There has been an increase, in today's values, from £2.5 billion to more than £7 billion. We have multiplied support by a factor of nearly three.

Mr. Milburn: Does the Minister accept that there is a crisis in public confidence about care in the community policies that has culminated in today's report on the tragic toll of suicides and homicides involving severely mentally ill people? Has not the Government's mismanagement of mental health policy left the NHS in the worst of all possible worlds—with too few beds in hospitals, inadequate facilities in the community and a shortage of trained staff in both? Surely the Minister does not believe that vulnerable people should simply be left to fend for themselves. When will he address the serious shortcomings identified in the report in order to help to avert further tragedies in future?

Mr. Dorrell: In dealing with this subject, the House is dealing with two separate issues: when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) I dealt with community care for elderly people; my answer to the two questions from the Opposition involves community care for the mentally ill. I might have hoped that, when he referred to the confidential report, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) would draw attention to the fact that it demonstrates that, despite public perceptions to the contrary, there has not been—

Mr. Milburn: That is the point.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says that the perception is the point. The fact that there has not been an increase in the number of homicides caused by people suffering from mental illness is important. It does not excuse—

Mr. Milburn: One is too many.

Mr. Dorrell: One is too many, of course, but there is no rising trend.
To improve the quality of mental health services, we must first define our objectives. That is why we are setting out a charter to state the objectives. Secondly, we must ensure that the resources flow to deliver the improvement of mental health services that we all want. That is why, at Budget time, I announced an extra £50 million of public money over two years to enhance the resources available to develop mental health services.

Basildon Hospital

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated at Basildon hospital during the last year. [7494]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): In 1994–95, there were 49,873 finished consultant episodes—in-patient and day cases—at Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust. In addition, there were 158,552 out-patient attendances.

Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hospital on achieving the shortest

waiting list time in Essex? Does my hon. Friend agree that Basildon hospital's success in achieving trust status may be judged by the 14 extra consultants employed in the past year, the 35 extra nurses, the opening of a new postgraduate centre, the award of a charter mark for its X-ray services and the 23 per cent. increase in patients treated?

Mr. Horam: I shall not add to my hon. Friend's magnificent list of statistics, for they are all accurate. It is obvious that Basildon has a great hospital as well as a great Member of Parliament.

Mr. Mackinlay: Did the Minister see that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) recently called for the sacking of the Basildon hospital management? How does the Minister square that with his most recent remarks?
Will the Minister also note that, as a result of the health authority closing the Orsett hospital accident and emergency department in the new Basildon constituency, my constituents in Thurrock and the constituents of Billericay and Basildon must wait five, six or sometimes seven hours in the accident and emergency department of Basildon hospital? Is he proud of that? Does he share the opinion of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and me that it is a lousy hospital, which needs to be reformed and differently managed?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman should bring his facts up to date. The episodes that he complains about were in 1992. They were apologised for at the time—and rightly so; they were extremely regrettable episodes. Those hospitals have reformed their procedures and, since then, put in the performance that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) described.
The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention the fact that Orsett hospital has been reconsidered and will be made into a big community hospital, that a new minor injuries unit will start soon and that day surgery will be retained. In other words, my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was wrong; the area has two great hospitals, not one.

Mrs. Gorman: May I divorce myself from the derogatory and disgraceful remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the hospitals in my constituency? I remind the hon. Gentleman, as well as my hon. Friend the Minister, of the wonderful service being done by the Thameside health authority, which covers the community needs of our area. It has recently provided almost 100 new beds for the elderly infirm. They therefore do not block hospital beds in the mainstream hospitals, with the result that we have practically no complaints as sitting Members about bed blocking, which cannot be said for many trusts in Labour-dominated areas.

Mr. Horam: I should have said that not only does the area have two great hospitals, but it has two great Members of Parliament.

Elderly People

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of District Councils to discuss the provision of care for elderly people. [7495]

Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of District Councils to discuss community care. [7504]

Mr. Bowis: The Association of County Councils is representing the Association of District Councils on social care matters where district authorities are becoming unitary authorities. We meet it and other local authority associations regularly to discuss community care issues. I last met them on 23 October 1995.

Mr. Marshall: Did those organisations convey to the Minister the concern that many elderly people feel about the cost of long-term care? What will the Government do to reduce the number of people—now about 40,000—who are forced to sell their homes each year? What additional measures do the Government intend to introduce to make the system more equitable and to ensure that that figure is reduced dramatically this year?

Mr. Bowis: The basis of charging policy is exactly the same as it was when it was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. We have listened to local authority associations and others and we have sought to ease the cost of people's accommodation. That is why we came forward with the proposals on occupational pensions, and it is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced decisions in the Budget on capital disregard and consultation about the partnership concept. We are looking for ways to encourage and enable people to prepare for their future care needs.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, our planning is rather different from that of the Labour party. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) delivered the verdict on that in his Fabian Society address, in which he said that Labour's health policy
leaves many important questions unanswered".
He referred to Labour's policy on the long-term care of the elderly as "fudging the issue".

Mr. Olner: Will the Minister confirm that the £16,000 disregard is nothing but a cruel hoax on elderly people, whose homes, on average, are worth about £67,000, as many of them will still lose their homes? Will the Minister say something about the inconsistency of eligibility as between local areas which makes care for the elderly a lottery in many parts of the country?

Mr. Bowis: The question of charging comparisons in different areas does not apply because there is a standard national system of charging. Although there are some areas of discretion for local authorities, they are perfectly open and it is for the elected members of those authorities to decide whether they are fair.
The change has been widely welcomed by organisations that represent the elderly and carers. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice not only the rise in the upper limit from £8,000 to £16,000, but the rise in the lower limit from £3,000 to £10,000. That has a significant impact on people who, in the past, were worried about matters such as funeral expenses. That burden has been lifted from their shoulders, which is why the change has been widely welcomed.

Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities, including mine, have worked very hard to implement community care both in the spirit and in the

letter and that it is generally working well? Does he accept also that there is evidence that some authorities do not meet the standard required? Will he confirm that his Department is not only carefully monitoring the implementation of community care but taking steps to elevate those laggard authorities to the standards and the quality of the best?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, there has been a very good start in implementing community care around the country. We always said that it would take a decade to implement it fully. Secondly, he is correct to say that, for a variety of reasons, some authorities are less than good. I fear that that is sometimes due to incompetence and that it is sometimes due to ideological hostility to the use of the independent sector, for example. That fact is borne out by the reports of the independent Audit Commission, not just by my Department's monitoring. The social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission do a great deal of monitoring and we try to follow that up with good practice guidance and by pursuing those authorities that are falling behind.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend consider what action can be taken against Labour and Liberal-controlled authorities that waste thousands of pounds by insisting on placing elderly people in local authority-run homes rather than those operated by the private sector? Is he aware that, in Essex, that ideological and blinkered policy is wasting £90,000 every week?

Mr. Bowis: I am aware of problems in Essex. As my hon. Friend knows, it is an area that the social services inspectorate is examining. I am aware also that authorities waste money by failing to use the most cost-effective placements. There are two remedies to that: first, there is statutory direction of choice that allows individuals to choose the home of their preference; secondly, district auditors have responsibility for checking value for money. A third response—perhaps it is the ideal solution—is to change the nature of the Essex authority so that it is run by the Conservative party.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister recall that community care was introduced with all-party consent on the basis that elderly people would be able to choose between care in residential homes and their own homes? Did not the Government seriously underestimate the number of elderly people who would make the more expensive choice of living at home rather than in residential homes? How does he intend to ensure that resources match need?

Mr. Bowis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the policy of community care. It has always been the intention that there should be the maximum choice possible within the resources available in an area. Resources must be taken into account as well. We have been putting massive resources into community care policy. This year, £5.1 billion will go into English local authorities—an increase of 12 per cent. on last year. No one can say that we are not putting our money where our policy is.

Health Funding

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the gross domestic product was


spent on the NHS in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978. [7496]

Mr. Dorrell: National Health Service spending in the United Kingdom as a whole has risen from 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1978–79 to an estimated 5.7 per cent. in 1995–96.

Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show clearly the different priorities of Conservative and Labour Governments for the NHS?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The figures show also how right the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) was when he wrote in his paper to the Fabian Society:
Labour's health policy will not look credible at the General Election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives in recent years.
The hon. Gentleman is precisely right to set our spending as the standard to which the Labour party has yet to rise.

Mr. Bayley: The Secretary of State should read more than the articles that his civil servants dig out. He might have read my recent article in the New Statesman in which it was acknowledged that health spending has increased in real terms under the Conservatives, but not as fast as it did under the Labour Government. The real issue is whether all patients in all parts of the country are given equal priority.
The Government have introduced a weighted capitation funding formula for hospital services; why do they not do the same for general practitioner and family health services, given the recent York report that shows that the north of the country and inner-city areas are deprived of GPs when compared with the leafy shires?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting prospect, which is that the Labour party should commit itself to tearing up the GP national contract. I look forward to hearing that policy endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The increase in expenditure on the health service by the Government is extremely commendable and I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Does he accept, however, that there is still a problem in community care, which has already been referred to this afternoon? Does he accept that there is a gap in the provision of care between the health service and social services when it comes to the mentally ill and those with behavioural problems? I refer especially to the cases in my constituency of Lynn Fox and Emma Larkins. Lynn Fox was stabbed to death because of the tremendous problems that she was creating for her neighbours. Emma Larkins burnt herself to death. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these things should not occur in a modern, civilised society and that we need to close the gap in the provision of care?

Mr. Dorrell: What my hon. Friend shows is that, not only in the mental health services but across the other services of the health service, expectations of the quality of service that we want to see are rising, and that opportunities to improve the quality of service provided by medical science are rising, too. The Government's spending record has allowed us to reconcile those rising expectations with the resources available.
My hon. Friend can certainly have the assurance that we shall continue to deliver our election commitment: to increase the resources available in real terms to the health service and use them to improve the quality of all the health services, which include the mental health services to which he referred.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the view of the professionals in the health service and those who speak on their behalf is that there are insufficient resources to ensure that the core services of the NHS—the acute and emergency services—can be comprehensively delivered in the country, what is the explanation? Is it that the NHS, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, is not efficient with its resources? Or is the truth that, although there has been real growth of about 10 per cent. since 1979, there is now barely any, and the next two years will see a cut in real resources to the NHS in real terms for the first time in 25 years?

Mr. Dorrell: Almost every one of the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted was wrong. He talked about an increase in real resources since 1979 of 10 per cent.; the actual figure is 71 per cent. He talked about a decline in real resources in the years ahead; that is not true, either. I announced before Christmas an increase of 1.6 per cent. in the real spending resources available to the health service next year over this year. That is building on the Government's record since 1979 of demonstrating the priority that they attach to health care by increasing the real resources available to the health service.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS trust has used its share of the increased gross national product to build the most up-to-date hospital in the country, including an overhead X-ray gantry in the resuscitation room, which is linked directly with the X-ray room, and to install—the first in Europe—a digital X-ray system that puts images immediately on to computer, which can be flashed out instantly to general practitioners in other hospitals anywhere in the world?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend referred to the use of capital within the health service. She was quite right to say that, because we have a record capital programme in the health service, we are able to invest in the things to which she referred. There is a problem for the Labour party in the capital programme. We made it clear that we abolished capital rationing in the health service by introducing the private sector through the private finance initiative.
That policy was endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition when he said during the Budget debate:
The PFI is right in principle."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1077.]
His health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), said, in my hearing on Saturday morning, "I don't call it the private finance initiative. I call it the privatisation initiative."
Either Labour is in favour of privatising the health service or it is against the PFI—or should be, according to the views of the hon. Member for Peckham. Is the Labour party for or against the PFI? We need to know.

Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State recognise that, despite his claims about extra resources, many hospitals are so overstretched that they are turning patients away


from their casualty wards and that patients face waits of up to 20 hours on trolleys before they can get a bed? Will he consider my proposals today for a four-point plan to tackle the casualty crisis? Will he declare a moratorium on further bed cuts? Will he appoint someone in each health authority to identify and take action locally? Will he monitor and publish a weekly report on the crisis and issue clear national guidelines to end the uncertainty about who pays for continuing care?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady asks for a moratorium on bed cuts to deal with the pressure on the emergency services. Let me tell the House what has happened since the beginning of the year with regard to the availability of beds for emergency cases. An extra 10 beds have been opened in Consett, 26 in Sunderland, 24 in Good Hope hospital in Birmingham, 12 in the West Middlesex, 32 in Newham general, 28 in Chester, 28 in Crewe, 10 in Warrington, 25 in Aintree, and so on. So much for bed cuts. I do not think that the hon. Lady is quite up to date.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome the extra resources that have been put into the NHS, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that they are used effectively? Does he agree that it is important that health authorities identify the health needs in their area, look at those procedures that are ineffective and ensure that less money is spent on them so that more money can be spent on those procedures that are effective and will deliver improved patient care?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an extremely important point. What we need to do in the health service is to ensure that clinical effectiveness is the test applied by clinicians in making their clinical judgments. That is not controversial within the clinical profession; the profession is committed to delivering it. That is why, when I announced guidelines on the subject last week, I was pleased to have the specific endorsement of representatives of the general practitioner fraternity and the hospital doctors for the important principle that my hon. Friend enunciates.

Private Sector Provision

Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has further to involve the private sector in the provision of health services. [7497]

Mr. Malone: We welcome public and private finance working together in health and have long argued for public-private partnerships. I am sure that the hon. Lady tabled her question so that she could express her agreement with that policy.

Ms Corston: Will the Minister confirm that NHS spending on private health care has shot up by 50 per cent. in the past year and that, since the creation of the internal market, £1.5 billion of NHS money has gone on private treatment? Is he also aware that in my constituency people find it increasingly difficult to obtain NHS dental care? They are faced with the stark choice of paying the full cost of private care or taking out private Den plan insurance. When the health service was set up, people were told that dental care would be provided. Why have the Tories broken that promise?

Mr. Malone: I was fascinated to see that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to agree with the policy that

I set out, for the simple reason that the first clause was in the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the second clause was in the words of the deputy Leader of the Opposition who, conveniently, has just taken his place. The point is simply that the Opposition cannot decide whether they welcome public-private partnerships, which is precisely what the hon. Lady's question is all about. They reject it one day and accept it the next. That is an absolutely ludicrous policy with which to go to the nation. They cannot make up their minds.

Sir John Gorst: Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not be fostering the development of the private sector in the borough of Barnet simply to facilitate the closure of Edgware general hospital's accident and emergency unit?

Mr. Malone: Certainly not. I congratulate my hon. Friend on looking down the Order Paper and anticipating a point that he might have wished to raise slightly later.

Intensive Care Beds

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he has undertaken of staffing for intensive care beds [7499]

Mr. Dorrell: It is for health authorities and trusts to determine the level of intensive care provision, including the level of staffing, that is needed by their local populations.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern, certainly in Rotherham, and in all other hospitals, at the cuts in intensive care beds? He will have seen the recent British Medical Association report.
I pay tribute to the work done in Rotherham in handling the recent meningitis scare by doctors, the public health authorities and school authorities. But the plain fact is that, when it comes to intensive care beds, there are severe cuts. The Secretary of State may claim that he is a one-nation Tory, but, under him, the NHS is not safe in anyone's hands.

Mr. Dorrell: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's question is that he talked about intensive care bed cuts, including some in his constituency, when the reality is that the Rotherham trust is discussing the commissioning of an extra intensive care bed and of an extra high-dependency bed in Rotherham as well. Opposition Members say that that is happening only in Rotherham, but the figures show that, compared with 1990, an extra 1,000 intensive care nurses are now employed. It simply is not true to say that there is reduced availability of intensive care beds in the national health service. What is certainly true—and this far I will go with the hon. Gentleman—is that we need to ensure that the structures in health service hospitals make the most effective possible use of the expensive resource of intensive care beds. That is why we set up a review to give advice and guidance on precisely that, the report of which I expect will be available shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7521]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Prime Minister justify sacking 3,000 prison officers at a time when his Home Secretary has forecast that the prison population will increase, and what will he do with 3,000 extra pairs of handcuffs? Is he going to use them on Lady Thatcher and the bastards in the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to ensure that we receive from the Prison Service the efficiency that both we and taxpayers have a right to expect from the Prison Service. The hon. Gentleman may not be concerned about efficiency for taxpayers' money, but we are.

Mr. Trotter: Did not the Saudi Government prove to be stable and sound allies in the Gulf war? Is it not in the interests of Britain that the Saudis should continue to have a stable Government, and has not Mr. Al-Masari abused his position as a guest in this country? Do not the thousands of people whose jobs he puts at risk, especially in the north of England, feel that he is very fortunate to be offered a home on a Caribbean island, rather than being sent back to where he came from?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, the United Kingdom has a long and honourable tradition of protecting and helping people who seek asylum, but if people abuse that hospitality, we should not ignore that. The stability of the Saudi Arabian Government is a matter of importance throughout the Gulf and for stability more generally, and we should not give comfort to people who seek to undermine it.

Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister tell us why the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has been reprimanded for writing his letter to The Times?

The Prime Minister: I set out my views on that issue last week and they have not changed.

Mr. Blair: What we would like to know is: has the Minister been reprimanded, yes or no?

The Prime Minister: Matters in my Government are for me and not you.

Mr. Blair: To which I can only say, looking at the Government, thank goodness.
So the Prime Minister cannot tell us. He cannot make up his mind whether he has reprimanded the Minister or not. He cannot make up his mind, presumably, whether he agrees with the Minister, or whether he agrees with Lady Thatcher. Is it any wonder, when the Prime Minister cannot even answer simple questions about his own Government, that the country despairs of weak leadership and a divided Government?

The Prime Minister: While we are on the subject of being clear about views, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether he would renationalise British Rail to please his party, or leave it alone to give his slogan some substance. Let him tell us some more. Would he abolish the grant-maintained schools that he voted against, or would he let parents enjoy the choice that he talks about? Would he tax more successful people to please

his left wing, or does he believe that success should be rewarded? Can he make up his mind about any of those examples, and a dozen more that I can give him—or does he not know the answer?

Sir Norman Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Land Rover on the major new overseas order that was announced this morning, on its continuing success in the overseas market and, above all, on the design of its new military ambulance?

The Prime Minister: Land Rover is an excellent company with a long and honourable record, and I am delighted to congratulate it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7522]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Jackson: If, as the Prime Minister claims, his policies have created strong economic growth, why are the appalling 500,000 job losses in the construction industry due—according to the Building Employers Confederation—to rise by a further 22,000? Where will those workers look for jobs, and where will thousands of homeless families look for homes?

The Prime Minister: Let me remind the hon. Lady of some of the economic circumstances—including the fall in unemployment—that now pertain in this country. No significantly sized country in western Europe has as much of its population in work; none of the major European countries has unemployment as low as ours; none of them has seen unemployment fall for over two years; and none of them can combine that with the lowest inflation levels for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years and the best prospects that we have seen for many years.

Mr. Marlow: Are more murders, muggings and mindless acts of violence carried out by adolescents now, or were there more in the days when corporal punishment was available both in schools and to the courts? If the answer is now, can we have corporal punishment back? I am sure that many people are concerned about the state of our streets and cities.

The Prime Minister: I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I can tell my hon. Friend, if he wishes to exercise arguments of that sort, that if he went back far enough and extended his thoughts to capital as well as corporal punishment, he would find that the number of murders committed many years ago when capital punishment applied was far larger than it is now. I am not sure that I draw the conclusion that was implicit in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7523]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the average age of a member of the Conservative party is now 62, that there are no more than 5,000 members of the Young Conservatives and that the Young Conservatives'


conference had to be cancelled this year owing to lack of interest? Will he tell us why young people in Britain have lost all interest in the Conservative party, and want nothing to do with it?

The Prime Minister: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's three questions are no, no and no; so the last part of what he said does not apply.

Q4. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7524]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to give people a stake in society is to allow them to own their homes, to own shares, to have their own pension schemes and, above all, to pay low taxes? Does he agree that that contrasts sharply with the Labour party's vision of a stakeholding society, which would place burdens on business men and, indeed, bring back vested interests in Labour's old friends?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in what she says. There has been some discussion recently about the term "stakeholder society" or "stakeholder economy". The Leader of the Opposition now tells us that it is a slogan, and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) tells us that he has not the faintest idea what it means. But we know and have been practising what it means for the past 16 years. It means giving people a direct, personal interest in what happens—lower taxes, more home ownership, more personal pensions—exercised by the holders themselves, not exercised by other people allegedly on their behalf.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7525]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pickthall: Will the Prime Minister look into the case of my elderly constituent, Teresa Stewart, who was referred to Fazackerly hospital by her GP? She arrived there at 4 o'clock in the afternoon but was not seen by a hospital doctor until 10 o'clock that evening. Thereafter, she remained on a trolley until noon the next day. Does not her case, and the hundreds of others up and down the country, demonstrate yet again that the national health service is not safe in the Tories' hands?

The Prime Minister: Of course I will look into the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to him. But the hon. Gentleman should realise that, with a service the size of the national health service, he will from time to time find matters of concern. There are now something over 8.5 million patients treated in total each year. The hon. Gentleman might care to consider how much lower that number was when last his party was in government.

Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will not follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition in seeming to imply to the nation that he has rejected everything he has ever believed? Will he also give an assurance that he

will never, as Prime Minister and leader of our party, give the impression that he has accepted totally the philosophy of the party that he has fought all his political life? Will he assure Conservative Members of that so that we will not have a similar fear to that of many Labour Members—that the leader of the Labour party is about to cross the Floor and join us?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The Leader of the Opposition seems to base the prospects for his future on the belief that he has always been wrong.

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7526]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Khabra: Does the Prime Minister have any new policies to end the recession in the housing market?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see that house prices have risen throughout the past five months. That is a very welcome trend. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seems neither to understand nor to hear anything that is said to him. I repeat the point—house prices have risen throughout the past five months. That is a welcome development, and I hope and expect to see it continue.

Mr. Legg: Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the latest book by the Labour guru, Will Hutton, especially the chapter entitled "Stakeholder Capitalism"? If my right hon. Friend has read that chapter, does he agree that Labour's vision of stakeholder capitalism owes more to the failed corporatism of the 1970s than to anything happening in Singapore today? Does he have any plans to introduce stakeholder trade unions, which would enjoy extra powers and rights?

The Prime Minister: The distinction between the Government and the Opposition on this matter is that we believe people should have a personal interest, personally owned, in the country. The Opposition seem to believe—if the idea is more than just a slogan, although that is not clear—in a corporatist approach in which special interest groups operate on behalf of the public at large, as the shadow Secretary of State for Transport said just the other day. The Leader of the Opposition, desperately trying to put flesh on his slogan, has failed to do so and has reaffirmed me in my belief that all he is concerned about is the readmission of a corporatist Britain of the sort we rejected in the 1980s and will not have back in the 1990s.

Mr. Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7527]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Miller: We are always on the look-out for fresh ideas from the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] So is his own party. What new plans does he have to increase investment in the British economy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right, in that the Opposition have sought, rather inadequately, to borrow many of our ideas—just as they have sought, without real conviction, to ditch their own.
Investment is rising, which is why this country has a higher growth rate than elsewhere in Europe. It is why unemployment is falling; it is why the economy is in

better shape at the moment than it has been for many years—and in better shape than the economy of anywhere else in western Europe.

Points of Order

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When I raised a point of order with you yesterday about the barbaric practice of shackling pregnant women, I inadvertently referred to the Home Secretary as "odious". Of course, I meant the practice, so I unreservedly withdraw the remark.

Madam Speaker: The House is grateful to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order with you on behalf of a number of my hon. Friends who have been in the House for a long time. May we have your guidance on the changing use of personal statements in this House? The Chair must find itself in a very difficult position when a senior Minister asks to make a personal statement—by tradition and definition, a statement not subject to questions, to scrutiny or to challenge at the time of delivery.
As an hon. Member who has, alas, been required himself to make a personal statement, I know that the rules required a Back Bencher to grovel, and a Minister almost always to end up resigning from office. That was the quid pro quo for not being subject to challenge or to questions.
What the House witnessed yesterday was an exercise in self-justification, unchallenged and unchallengeable. If that happens again, the personal statement will become little more than a device for ministerial escape and an unlovely pouring of blame on to civil servants who cannot answer for themselves.
My complaint is the stronger because it would not occur to me to ask questions about women prisoners in England; but some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), tell me that they would have liked to ask questions.
Should not statements—especially truculently delivered statements—be open to question and not provide a ministerial escape route? This is a House of Commons point, not a party point.

Madam Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point in some detail. The House has, however, entrusted me with complete discretion as to whether to allow any Member to make a personal statement. I am quite satisfied that, in allowing the Minister of State, Home Office to give a personal explanation on one strictly circumscribed aspect of the matter in question about which she had previously misinformed the House, and to apologise to the House for so doing, I was not breaking any new ground.
What happened was, incidentally, fully in line with the new version of the document "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which the Chancellor of the Duchy of

Lancaster explained to the House on 2 November last, at column 456. That requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. Nothing which occurred yesterday will prevent Members from pursuing the main issue, or indeed, if they wish, the subsidiary issue, by all parliamentary means available.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 25 May 1994, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made an unreserved apology to the House for misleading it over tabling amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In an extensive article in Sunday's edition of The Observer, she not only said that she did not understand why she had had to make an apology, but added that she had had nothing to apologise for. In the same article, she called into question your own involvement at that time.
Is that not discourteous to the Speaker, and is it not within the rights of the House to expect the hon. Lady, to whom I gave ample notice that I was raising this issue and who has just left the Chamber, to make a public apology in which she can explain to the House her change of attitude over the past 18 months on this very serious matter?

Madam Speaker: I have not treated myself to reading the article in full. At the time in question, however, the hon. Lady was of course required by me to apologise to the House, and she did so. I said at the time that her behaviour
fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect".— [Official Report, 25 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 342.]
I think that my comments at that time were most pertinent.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the House divide on the use of the word "odious" by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) as regards the Home Secretary?

Madam Speaker: Although I agree that that is a point of order for me, I would need a notice of motion on the Order Paper before allowing that suggestion to proceed.

Ms Jean Corston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Among today's questions to the Secretary of State for Health, I asked about the provision of NHS dentistry as a supplementary to a question about the increase of private provision in the health service. In a long answer, the Minister of State made absolutely no reference to dentistry at all. Is it in order for a Minister to abuse the procedures of the House and not to make any reference at all to the question asked? What action would you propose I take?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, it is not for the Speaker to comment on Ministers' responses. They are responsible for the answers they give. I shall look carefully at the answer to which the hon. Lady has drawn my attention. She will notice that senior Ministers are sitting on the Government Front Bench, and I hope that they will also take note of her comments.

Delegated Legislation

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (S.I.,1995,No. 2869) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 3000) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Tobacco (Protection of Children and Restriction of Promotion)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect children, young people and others from the harmful effects of tobacco by restricting the advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and tightening existing legislation on enforcement of illegal sales to minors; and for connected purposes.
In the autumn, the British Medical Association produced data which clearly showed that, if one takes the top 10 brands of cigarette advertised and compares the smoking habits of children and adults, three out of the four most heavily advertised brands also figure in statistics of the top four brands smoked by children aged between 11 and 14. It is clear that adults are much less sensitive to tobacco advertising than children. Adults are much more affected by price.
The other extremely pertinent figure showed that the top four brands smoked by children make up over three quarters of all the advertising done by tobacco companies within the United Kingdom. That is also more than those companies had advertised before.
It is now unarguable that tobacco advertising and smoking by children are linked. They are linked in a way which I hope that the Government will accept should be worrying for them. By their own figures, their "The Health of the Nation" targets are not being reached, and attempts to reduce smoking by children are failing. Indeed, smoking by children and young people is going up rather than down. For the first time in over 10 years, over 10 per cent. of teenagers are smoking. The increase in smoking by girls and young women should give the House particular cause to reflect on what we can do about it.
This issue has come before the House several times before, and as long ago as 1965 we agreed that there should be a ban on television advertising. Subsequently, it was agreed that there should be a ban on radio advertising of tobacco products. We should now ban advertising on hoardings or through promotion, particularly by sponsorship of sporting events.
I am happy to approach this in a reasonable manner and say that the legislation could be for a temporary and trial period in order to prove the case—five or 10 years, properly monitored by all those with an interest. The interest is not simply to make a case against the tobacco companies, but to win the argument about protecting the health of vulnerable young people.
It is clear that tobacco sponsorship of sport is a particularly insidious form of advertising. I am a keen follower of sport. I believe that sport should be well promoted and I support the Prime Minister's initiative to promote it, particularly among young people and across the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, research has shown that children as young as six associate brands such as—I will name them—John Player Special and Marlboro, both of which sponsor motor racing, with excitement and fast racing cars.
It is interesting that the images that young children associate with certain brands must have been gleaned from sponsorship of sporting events; that is increasing, with the growing amount of sporting sponsorship by tobacco companies.
Tobacco companies are honest about it. They do not pretend that it is a matter of selfless corporate generosity. Somebody from Gallaher said recently:
Sports sponsorship is a form of advertising which enables us to introduce glamour and excitement.
A spokesman from Rothmans said:
No one hands over big cheques just to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling.
There is not a huge amount of tobacco money involved in sports sponsorship—£10 million out of about £250 million. There is no real concern that sponsors could not be found elsewhere. When sponsorship has been sought among other sponsors for sporting events, it has been found and the market has plenty of people willing to take the place of the tobacco companies.
Another unsatisfactory fact is that, although there is supposed to be a law banning the sale of cigarettes to those under 16, in reality it is not working. We all know that, and nobody deludes himself otherwise. A properly monitored and controlled survey carried out last year showed that almost two thirds of young people who had tried to buy cigarettes when they were under the legal age said that they had never been refused. Only 143 people were prosecuted in the last year for which figures are available, and only 85 were fined. In reality, there is very little monitoring or enforcement.
I am not naive about this. I know that three things significantly influence tobacco smoking by young people: adult activity, especially by parents; peer group pressure; and advertising. The second is largely the result of the third: peer group pressure often comes indirectly from advertising. Anyone with children who make demands for trainers and designer tops and clothes will know that demand is much more often led not by instinct but by advertising.
Yesterday, the British Medical Association published the British Medical Bulletin, which I commend to the House. It included a considerable number of expert articles edited by people eminent in their fields, which bear out my argument. In particular, it bears out the fact that advertising is one of the ways in which children with low esteem, who are often from backgrounds where smoking is more prevalent, pick up the habit early on.
I do not come to this subject from a nanny state view, or believe that there should be restrictions on adults who smoke. I do not shoo out of my house people who smoke. I do not take a purist or rigorous attitude. However, in respect of young people, for whom we all have a responsibility, the issue is different.
The reason why advertising is so important is because of the clear, unarguable impact on the young. Five out of six people who become regular, adult smokers have begun smoking by the age of 15. The tobacco industry spends about £100 million or more a year on advertising. Expenditure on health promotion to discourage smoking is under £10 million.
That imbalance produces young people who become hooked on what is—there is no dispute in the House about this—the largest single preventable cause of death in the United Kingdom. More than one third of middle-aged deaths are smoking-related, and in many places lung cancer has replaced breast cancer as the most common form of the disease, especially among young women.
Last night, we had an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) argued that there should be much better publicity for the health risks of Ecstasy; and so there should. Ten people are known to have died in the past year from Ecstasy; 100,000 people have died from tobacco-related disease. It is hypocritical and inconsistent to say that something should be done about Ecstasy, but that we are happy as a nation to go on allowing the tobacco industry, for its own benefit, to promote something to which young people become addicted and which could, or will, kill them.
I know that there is a benefit from tobacco revenues to the Exchequer. I realise that that is one of the reasons for the current position. There are people who regard that as a vested interest that they need to protect. However, I have never seen evidence that there would not be a greater benefit to the Exchequer from cutting the cost to the health service of trying to put back together the broken bodies and lives caused by tobacco-related diseases than from tobacco advertising, which has gone on for far too long.
Children say that they are influenced. There is the broadest support, in every corner of the House, from among Members from each of the countries of the United Kingdom, for the Bill. I pick up from where colleagues such as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) have been in the past. I ask the House to allow the Bill a First Reading, and to pass it into law, even if only on a trial basis to prove that we are right.

Mr. John Carlisle: I oppose the Bill, although the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has, as one would expect, put the argument in a plausible and reasonable manner. Nobody in the House would dispute the fact that every discouragement should be given to try to prevent children from smoking and people from taking up the habit in the first place. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman's Bill goes far wider. He failed to put forward his Bill in several of the examples that he used in regard to promotional activity.
What bothers me is that the Bill is the thin end of a wide wedge. I regret to say that, although the hon. Gentleman told the House that the Bill involved only young people, it is far wider—to the extent that he talks in the Bill about the effect on young people "and others". I must tell him that, plausible though his argument may seem, the facts do not justify the emotion of his argument.
In his Bill, the hon. Gentleman sets out the need to enforce the law against the illegal selling of tobacco. That measure would have the full support of the House. He is right to say that retailers must be urged not to sell cigarettes to people under 16, because that is against the law. He is right to urge local authorities to discourage, and to prosecute, retailers who sell tobacco products to children under the age of 16. He omits to say, however, that the Home Office report, which was published only one year ago, states that the local authorities' success rate in imposing fines and other penalties is more than 90 per cent. That success may not be sufficient in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman and others, but the existing system works.
The Bill bothers me, because it is yet another tranche of legislation intended to add additional measures to the existing agreements between Government and the tobacco


manufacturers, which, as the hon. Member knows, were fought over with difficulty for a long time. Most of the agreements are extremely strict—far stricter than those of the past—and have been reached with the support of all sides of the industry, and the argument.
I am also bothered by the hon. Gentleman's argument about drugs and their illegal use. I should remind him that the BMA report he quoted said that between 10 and 12 per cent. of children try cigarettes between the ages of 11 to 15. He is right to say that that 10 to 12 per cent. may represent too many children. He did not mention, however, that a report from Leicester university, which was issued on the same day as the BMA report, suggests that one in four children under the age of 15—or 25 per cent. —try drugs.
It does not befit the hon. Gentleman to use the drugs argument when, two years ago, his party conference suggested that cannabis should be legally used, inevitably by young people. Of course that embarrasses the hon. Gentleman, but I think that his Bill, his wrath and his indignation are directed at the wrong quarter.
The premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that advertising attracts young children to smoking. I am a non-smoker, although I will not say that I have never touched the weed, because I had the odd one behind the hedge at school, many years ago. It is a total mystery to those of us who are non-smokers how he can tell the House that 14 or 15-year-olds are influenced by cigarette advertising. It has been proven that those advertisements are used purely to attract existing smokers to different brands. That is a flaw in his argument.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Marlboro cigarettes, and said that six-year-olds were influenced by those advertisements. I must confess that I did not know that six-year-olds have started buying cars—although possibly in a Liberal world they should be allowed to do so. I know that the Liberals want the age of driving reduced. The hon. Gentleman and his friends—apart from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who I see is not in his place today, but who wrote an excellent article some three weeks ago decrying the hon. Gentleman's argument—are advocating a nanny state.
The problem with this Bill, as with any such intended legislation, is that it totally ignores the real world. The Liberals want to see the creation of a nanny state, which stops people doing something that they want to do. The Liberals are hiding behind the subject of children. The hon. Gentleman does not mention that, under the existing agreement, it has been agreed not to erect poster sites within three miles of schools; not to place advertisements in young people's magazines; and that there should be no such thing as glamour advertisements, which might attract the young.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that everything should be done to discourage young people from smoking. As he said, however, the pressure to smoke comes from peer groups and from brothers and sisters.
The Bill, should it receive the approval of the House, is totally unnecessary because of existing legislation. What a pity that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to take up the time of the House on something that is totally unnecessary, and based on pure emotion rather than pure fact.
I therefore urge my hon. Friends to reject this stupid and illogical Bill, not merely on the basis of liberty and fairness, but because the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not borne out by the facts—his Bill will do nothing to help to protect the young children of whom he talks.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 39.

Division No. 23]
[3.54 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Harvey, Nick


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hayes, Jerry


Alton, David
Heppell, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Ashton, Joe
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernaulcd)


Austin-Walker, John
Home Robertson, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Battle, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bayley, Hugh
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beggs, Roy
Hutton, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Illsley, Eric


Benton, Joe
Ingram, Adam


Betts, Clive
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Blunkett, David
Janner, Greville


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jessel, Toby


Burden, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Keen, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D N
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Canavan, Dennis
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Cann, Jamie
Kilfoyle, Peter


Chidgey, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Llwyd, Elfyn


Church, Judith
Loyden, Eddie


Clapham, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
McCrea, The Reverend William


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Corbett Robin
McMaster, Gordon


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacShane, Denis


Corston, Jean
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mahon, Alice


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Marek, Dr John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dafis, Cynog
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Dalyell, Tam
Martlew, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Maxton, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Meale, Alan


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dowd, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mudie, George


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Etherington, Bill
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Hara, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Olner, Bill


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Pearson, Ian


Flynn, Paul
Pickthall, Colin


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L


Galbraith, Sam
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Galloway, George
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Garrett, John
Purchase, Ken


Godman, Dr Norman A
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rooker, Jeff


Grocott, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Hain, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Hall, Mike
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hanson, David
Simpson, Alan






Sims, Roger
Walley, Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N 


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watson, Mike


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Welsh, Andrew


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Wigley, Dafydd


Stevenson, George
Wilkinson, John


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sweeney, Walter
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
 Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace,James
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and



Mr. Don Foster.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Knox, Sir David


Bendall, Vivian
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Mills, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Carrington, Matthew
Riddick, Graham


Cummings, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dover, Den
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Durant, Sir Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Gardiner, Sir George
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hawksley, Warren
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward



Hicks, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Peter Atkinson and



Mr. Harry Greenway.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Roger Sims, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Eddie McGrady and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

TOBACCO (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND RESTRICTION OF PROMOTION)

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to protect children, young people and others from the harmful effects of tobacco by restricting the advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and tightening existing legislation on enforcement of illegal sales to minors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 February and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that, in recent months, I have repeatedly raised with you, both on the Floor of the House and in correspondence, the question of the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. As I understand it, he is currently responsible for deregulation and the co-ordination of Government policy.
The publication of the unemployment figures is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and they are due to be announced tomorrow. I draw your attention to a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning at the Pilkington technology centre in Lancashire, in which he announced that the real news of today is that unemployment is down for the 28th month in a row. I remind Government Members that the figures are fiddled, but that is a matter for another day.
The central argument is the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister. He is now usurping the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by announcing the figures 24 hours in advance, and probably without her permission.

Madam Speaker: I cannot be responsible for what Ministers say in the House, and I am certainly not responsible for what Cabinet Ministers say outside the House. Ministers' duties and responsibilities are a matter for the Prime Minister, and I hope that the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be brought to his attention.

Opposition Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

BBC World Service

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the BBC World Service on its international reputation for objective news and comment and records its appreciation of the valuable contribution it makes to promoting respect and goodwill for Britain; expresses its concern at the effects of cuts imposed on the World Service and its alarm at the likely reduction in the range of foreign language broadcasts; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that policies on the Private Finance Initiative and public support for the World Service enable it to maintain its present level of services and to build on their success.
I am conscious of a novel experience. On Supply days it is normal to move a motion that divides the House. I think that I can say that on this occasion there is much in the motion that unites the House. It is agreed in all corners of the House that the BBC World Service is a great British success. It is by far the largest of any of the external broadcasting services of the western nations. Its audience is still rising. In the past three years, it has risen from 120 million to 133 million. The audience would be larger still if there were not uncounted millions in places such as China and Iraq. We cannot be certain whether they listen to the World Service, because were they to be asked and were they to say yes, they would be liable to be put in prison.
In a now notorious speech, the Secretary of State for Defence assured the Conservative party conference that the letters SAS were feared throughout the world. If there is a British organisation that is known by three letters round the globe, it is surely the BBC. They are letters that inspire not fear for Britain but respect, admiration and good will. It would be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to name any way in which he could spend his money that would give him a better return on a positive environment for good will towards Britain.
I know of one letter that has been sent to the Foreign Secretary by a listener in Africa, which expresses the point well. The letter reads:
The BBC World Service is the diplomat who can enter the rural home, the urban business centre, the civil servant's office and the country hospital ward.
It is for that reason that Members on both sides of the House support the World Service. It deserves also the support of all parties. The World Service demonstrates in practice our democratic values, including truthful reporting, independent comment and all the other features on which an open society must be based. As a result, the World Service provides a beacon for countries with regimes that suppress truth and independent comment.
When the Burmese opposition leader emerged from years of house arrest to claim her Nobel prize, she said:
The BBC World Service really was a lifeline.
When Nelson Mandela emerged from prison, he said that what he really wanted in prison was a receiver that would enable him to listen to the World Service. As his name

reminds us, the dissident of today is the leader in power tomorrow. It is impossible to exaggerate the influence for Britain of the politicians throughout the world who have come to rely on the BBC for their independent news.
We all recognise the importance of the World Service. Both sides of the House are agreed on its value. Even more unusually, both sides of the Tory party are agreed. It is one of those issues around which Euro-sceptics and one-nationers can find common cause. Even Ministers agree with us. Last week, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognised the
great value and high quality"—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 201.]
of the World Service. This morning, the Foreign Secretary described it as "superb value". If superlatives would pay wage cheques, the World Service would be on the verge of major expansion. Instead, its executive met this weekend to consider where it would cut services.
The real crisis that the executive faces will come in 1997–98, when the revenue budget—the one that pays for the services that it provides—will be reduced. The Foreign Secretary has written to the World Service saying that it can expect a cut in 1997–98 of £2.5 million. That will be on top of a cut of £2 million in the same year's budget, which was imposed in November 1994.
Those cuts cannot be replaced by the private finance initiative because they are cuts in the operating budget. It may be that the Foreign Secretary is right and that cuts in the capital budget can be replaced by the private finance initiative.
Perhaps somebody will come forward and build a new transmitter in Oman and lease it back to the BBC World Service. I would, in passing, express a worry about the commercial relationship that that would create. I am concerned that it might compromise the most prized and respected quality of the BBC World Service—the independence of its editorial comment and its freedom from external pressures, whether political or commercial.
This month, we were reminded of the risks of such a commercial relationship when BBC World Service Television bulletins covering the expulsion of Muhammad al-Masari, which were broadcast to the middle east, were disrupted at the transmitter in Italy, which, of course, is funded from the middle east. That example shows the potential conflict between commercial funding—I presume that the Foreign Secretary does not exclude foreign funding—and the freedom of the BBC World Service to broadcast without interference.
For the purposes of the debate, I offer a deal to the Foreign Secretary. I shall not object to the private finance initiative as a source of capital funding for the World Service if he stops pretending that the PFI will solve the financial pressures on it, because if the World Service is successful and manages to get the PFI money, that will not solve the pressures on its operating budget. Indeed, it will increase the pressures because the BBC World Service will have to find extra cash to pay the bills for leasing the transmitter.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that I agree with much of what he has said, as I worked many years ago for the BBC World Service and I still have some connections with the BBC. In total, the cut amounts to around 1 per cent. of the BBC World Service's operating budget. Will he now give a


firm commitment to restore that 1 per cent. and say how much would be allocated to the BBC World Service in grant in aid if there were a Labour Government?

Mr. Cook: I have already answered the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question several times today. [Interruption.] If Ministers will be quiet, I shall repeat what I said before: that I give an undertaking that, under the next Labour Government, which, I hope, will be with us in 1997, we shall maintain the present level of language broadcasts by the BBC World Service. The hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong. The total cut in the operating budget of the World Service is about 8 per cent. Yet that is less than 1 per cent. of the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is spending £77 million this year on management consultants—almost half the total budget of the BBC World Service. Is that really better value for money than putting money into the BBC World Service?

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman has repeated to the House what he said on the radio this morning: that he was prepared on behalf of a future Labour Government to commit them not to cut the language services of the BBC World Service. He has, however, declined to give an assurance that he would replace any reduction in resources that might have been implemented. The only way in which one can reconcile those statements is on the basis that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, through better value for money, the BBC should be able to maintain its existing language services without the restoration of the cuts, otherwise he would be committing himself to such a restoration, and he is not prepared to do that.

Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State followed me on the radio this morning and said that it was not his wish to cut the language services. I do not understand, then, the problem that he is putting before us. If I was confronted by BBC World Service executives saying that they could not provide those language services on the present budget, I would go back and look at the £77 million that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was spending on management consultants and ask how much of that could be put into the World Service.
We have a Government who can always find the money that they want for their political priorities. They are currently spending £1 billion on privatising the rail service. They are spending £1 billion more a year on extra bureaucracy in the NHS to make the reforms work. One per cent. of either of those sums would fully fund the BBC World Service and do much more good for Britain than either objective.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend moves on, is not it the case that the Labour party has a long tradition of supporting the BBC World Service, whereas the Government have a patchy record? I remember, when I was first in the House, when the Government wanted to cut the language service to Latin America—to Argentina in particular—because it was not necessary any more, just before the Falklands conflict. That is the sort of long-term view that the Conservative Government have of the BBC World Service. Every time that they are in a bit of a squeeze, they want to cut the BBC World Service.

Mr. Cook: I press home my hon. Friend's point by turning to the point that the Secretary of State was leading us on to about value for money.
We are not dealing with an overweight organisation in which the savings can be found by a crash course in slimming. The BBC World Service has already been through three lean years. Its operating budget has already been slimmed by 8 per cent. during those past three years. In that time, it has implemented many of the recommendations of the National Audit Office. In the same month in which the Government revealed the cuts, the National Audit Office published a second report in which it praised the World Service for an "improvement in management performance" and significant strides forward.
I hope that, against that background of an efficient organisation that has already made major savings, the Foreign Secretary, when he comes to speak, will treat hon. Members as adults and not continue with the pretence that the cuts in grant aid do not matter because no service will be affected.
I heard also this morning the managing director of the BBC World Service tell the nation that the cuts will mean cuts in services—cuts so significant that it would be wrong to try to meet them by salami slicing, but which would have to be met by dropping whole discrete services. That is why, on Sunday, the executive of the World Service met to consider which languages could be dropped from its portfolio if those cuts went ahead in 1997.
I repeat the question that the Secretary of State failed to answer last week. If Ministers were at that conference, which languages would they drop to save the £10 million? This, after all, is the moment in history when the European Union is opening its doors to central and eastern Europe. The Governments of those countries will take part in joint decisions that will affect the lives of our citizens. This is not the time when we should be reviewing broadcasting in Czech, Polish or Hungarian.
I shall be frank with the House. The House needs to pay attention to the very real possibility that enlargement of the European Union may strengthen the hand of Germany, which already has substantial influence in that region of Europe. One of the strongest cards that Britain has in its hand is that the BBC World Service is listened to by 10 times the audience of its German rival. That gives us tremendous access to influence and good will. We should be guaranteeing, not threatening, the future of those programmes.
If central Europe is not the place for cuts, where else in the world might they be made? During the past few months, both sides of the House have joined in an enjoyable debate on the lessons that the tiger economies hold for Britain. We differ on what those lessons might be, but I think that we are agreed on the exciting growth of those economies as markets for British trade. Is this the time to be reviewing whether we should supply the Mandarin service that goes to Taiwan or the services to the younger tiger economies of Indonesia, Burma and Thailand? If we drop any of those, at what cost to British trade do we make the saving in public spending?
The Foreign Secretary will know that British companies and British business leaders, from Standard Chartered to Unilever, have written to him opposing the cuts because the BBC World Service opens doors to business by creating a favourable image of British standards.
In my current portfolio, I am obliged to accept Governor Patten as above party politics. Therefore, I shall seize this opportunity of agreeing with him. When he was here last October and gave his lecture on the tiger economies, Governor Patten, speaking of the BBC World Service, said:
It is worth every penny of public money it receives.
That is true—true not just in that it backs the influence of British diplomacy, but true also in that every penny put into the BBC World Service produces pounds in British trade and probably also pounds in inward investment into Britain. I do not therefore rest my case on altruism. The case for the House backing the BBC World Service rests on British self-interest, because it gives us a source of political leadership and diplomatic influence, and it is the basis of the trade expansion on which our economy thrives or fails.
The BBC World Service also, however, provides valuable support for humanitarian relief and for economic development. In Rwanda and Serbia, it provided a missing person link line, which has brought together parents and children separated in different refugee camps. In eastern Europe, the World Service has provided programmes as part of the Marshall plan of the mind, which has helped the populations of the former communist countries come to terms with modern technologies and market economies. If the debate is to be, as the Foreign Secretary seems to suggest, about value for money, I should like to hear what better value he could get in helping the people of those regions than by investing through those services.

Sir Peter Emery: I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument and criticisms. Will he clearly tell the House how much extra he and the Labour party believe should be given to the World Service to fulfil the tasks that he has outlined?

Mr. Cook: The irony of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the BBC World Service is asking not for extra money, but for its budget not to be cut. It could live even within a stable budget after the 8 per cent. cuts of the past three years. If we want the BBC World Service to build on its success, surely the least that we can offer it is the stability and security of the assurance that that budget will continue.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I will, but this must be the last occasion, as many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Arnold: Bearing it in mind that the real increase in spending on the BBC World Service since 1979, during the years of the Conservative Government, is 50 per cent., what was the real increase in spending, if any, by the Labour Government on the service?

Mr. Cook: I understand that it is now permissible for Opposition Members to put in a good word for Lady Thatcher, and I would concede that she carried through a major expansion of World Service resources because she had a proper grasp of its importance in world affairs. That has not been the story in this Parliament, when BBC World Service resources have gone down by 8 per cent. It is now faced with another 8 per cent. cut in the next two years. I do not wish to take sides on Lady Thatcher's general observation that the Government are letting down the Thatcherite legacy, but on this point, they are certainly letting down the record that she left behind.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Answer the question.

Mr. Cook: I have answered the question of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in that, in this Parliament, the Government are cutting the World Service's budget.

Mr. Arnold: rose—

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press me again on a point on which, I believe, central office has briefed him, I shall tell him—because I was here at the time and he, I think, was not—that, despite difficult economic circumstances, and the fact that we had not a penny in oil revenues and did not sell off any of the nation's industrial assets, the previous Labour Government managed to maintain the services of the World Service and the resources going into it.
I shall give this advice to the hon. Gentleman, and judging by his majority, he needs it. He may want the Government to escape from the trap in which they now lie in the opinion polls, where they are perceived as being out of touch by 85 per cent. of the population, but he will only confirm that perception, if every time people ask him how we solve a problem in 1997, he wants to talk only about 1977. If he wants to go to his constituency and talk from now until polling day about the 1970s, I warn him that that will suit us perfectly because it will restore neither his electoral fortunes nor the funding of the BBC World Service.

Mr. Arnold: rose—

Mr. Cook: I will not give way.
I shall now return to the problems. I was describing the services provided to countries where we provide humanitarian relief. The people of those countries have no doubt about the value to them of those services. For that matter, other countries that maintain external broadcasts have no doubt about the value to them of such services. The Government of France will be increasing the budget of RFI, the French international broadcasting service, by an eighth in the same year that we shall cut the BBC World Service budget by 8 per cent.
The Foreign Secretary has said that he does not wish any language service to be closed. If he really does not, I cannot understand why he does not accept the motion, because that is its central demand. We could set a new precedent in parliamentary procedure: this could be the first occasion on which the Government accepted an Opposition Supply day motion.
If the Foreign Secretary is serious—if he really wishes to keep the present language service—he must answer one question. What will he say if the BBC World Service tells him, "We are sorry, but we cannot make the savings for which you have asked without cutting services"? Will he be willing to look again at the funding for 1997 to ensure that language services can be continued?

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: He has already said that.

Mr. Cook: No, he has not. That, however, is the key question that the Foreign Secretary must answer in the House—and I warn him that he must not evade it by saying that he agrees that the British World Service is a great success. The more the Government tell us that it is


a great success, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they are not prepared to build on that success by backing it.
The BBC World Service is a great national asset, and those who work in it provide a quality of service that does Britain credit. They are entitled to know that they have the confidence of the House. I urge all hon. Members to use today's debate and tonight's vote to express their support for the work of the BBC World Service and their recognition of its immense value, and to demand that the Government give a commitment tonight that the present level of services will be maintained and will not be cut.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates the BBC World Service on its international reputation for objective news and comment and records its appreciation of the valuable contribution it makes to promoting respect and good will for Britain; expresses its welcome for the 50 per cent. growth in real terms of its resources since 1979 as well as the significant increase in foreign language broadcasts over the same period; and shares Her Majesty's Government's determination to ensure that the World Service will continue to enjoy unrivalled success.".
I know that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House are long-standing devotees of the World Service, who have given it unstinting support for many years. I intend to concentrate on responding to any worries that they may have, and assuring them that the World Service will have a future as glorious as its current excellent position.
I hope that I was forgiven a wry smile as I observed the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) trying to don the mantle of a champion of the World Service. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), he implied that the Labour party—as opposed to individual Labour Members—had given good service to the BBC over the years. I must remind him and also the House that he, too, will be judged not by his words but by his deeds.
Like me, the hon. Gentleman was in the House in the 1970s; like me, he remembers clearly what happened under the Labour Government of 1974–79. He recalls the stagnation that affected the World Service throughout that period, and the 7.7 per cent. cut in its resources that was made in the final year of that Government.
We also remember the capital allocations that were available. I shall not detain the House long as I wish to deal with the present position, but we need to put the facts on the record. In 1977, the central policy review study concluded:
Because of public expenditure constraints in the UK, the BBC has not been able to modernise its transmitters sufficiently fast to keep up with its international competitors. As a consequence, there has been a decline in the audibility of its programmes, and an extensive capital programme is now needed to restore that audibility".
That was the position when the present Government came to office. Now let us consider what has been achieved under the Conservative Government. First, let us compare the stagnation during Labour's term of office, when there was zero growth, with the growth—50 per cent. in real terms—that the present Government have secured for the

World Service. In contrast with the failure to fund the BBC's capital requirements glaringly identified by the central policy review staff two years before the end of the Labour Government, we have presided over a capital programme of no less than £166 million, which was completed in 1991. That is why the BBC has expanded in the dramatic way that it has. Since then, we have continued the work on a new relay station in Thailand as part of a future programme of work.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that whereas a BBC internal estimate in the 1970s suggested that more than half the land mass of the world could not receive any BBC transmissions, now more than 90 per cent. of the world can receive BBC on short wave? Most of the world is also covered in stereo by satellite transmission. That has happened since the Government have been in power.

Mr. Rifldnd: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The figures reflect that fact graphically. When the Labour Government left office, the number of people who listened to the BBC World Service was 75 million. The hon. Member for Livingston paid tribute in his speech to the fact that the number now listening has increased from 75 million to 133 million. He should reflect on the fact that the BBC World Service—thanks to the investment programme funded by the Government—now has more listeners than any of its competitors; indeed, it has more than double the number of listeners of its nearest competitor.
If the hon. Member for Livingston wished to be as objective as his rhetoric implied, he should have paid tribute to the achievements of the BBC World Service under the Conservative Government. Those achievements have continued during this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman implied that the period of expansion somehow ceased in 1992, but that was incorrect. In the past four years, no fewer than four new language services have been introduced. In 1992, Ukrainian was introduced for the first time. In 1993, Albanian was re-introduced, having been withdrawn in 1967 under a Labour Government. In 1994, we introduced a language service for Rwanda, because of the tragedy in that country. In December 1995, we introduced Macedonian.
I heard the hon. Member for Livingston muttering about the French for Europe service. He knows perfectly well that that service was withdrawn by the BBC World Service, not for public expenditure survey reasons, but because the target for people listening to the programme had not been met. The BBC therefore decided, for its own understandable reasons, that the service was not good value for money.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State claimed "we introduced" a new service for Rwanda, implying that the Government had done so. Is he aware that funding for the Rwanda service does not come from grant aid but is provided by a number of non-governmental organisations?

Mr. Rifkind: I am informed that it is funded through the BBC World Service, which is funded by the Government. We could have a splendid discussion on that subject, but the fundamental point is that a significant number of additional languages have been introduced by the BBC World Service during this Parliament. That should be warmly applauded.
I have made those points because the Government have been responsible for the largest ever expansion in the capital programme and in the number of listeners to the BBC World Service. It is unlikely, therefore, that we would now be contemplating reversing those achievements or preventing the BBC World Service from maintaining the high standards that it has achieved. What we are doing—and I make no apology whatever for it—is expecting the BBC, like any other international organisation, with regard to both capital and current expenditure, to seek efficiency through use of the private sector and other means so as to reduce the burdens on the taxpayer, but without reducing the successful language services that have been expanded under the Government.
That is the framework of our policy. I notice that the hon. Member for Livingston, in the words of the motion, in his interview this morning and in his speech, did not dare to disassociate himself from value for money as a desirable objective, or from the private finance initiative as a desirable way to achieve value for money. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is a legitimate objective, he is using weasel words when he condemns the Government for proposing such a reform.

Mr. Robin Cook: This morning the Foreign Secretary heard the managing director of the BBC World Service say that he cannot meet these cuts by value for money or efficiency savings. If the managing director is still taking that view after he has completed his review of the funding for 1997–98, will the Foreign Secretary be prepared to provide the resources necessary to preserve the current 42 language services?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that, but first I wish to quote for the record the formal position of the BBC. The chairman of the BBC acknowledges that the World Service
cannot be seen in isolation from the totality of the budget".
The managing director, Mr. Younger, has said that the World Service
will be taking a fresh look at the scope for further efficiency savings in our operations.
I welcome the fact that he added in respect of the capital programme:
We are already looking positively at how the Private Finance Initiative can be applied to our capital plans and I am hopeful that we can make significant progress.
The formal statement that the BBC issued did not say that cuts were inevitable or even likely. I have the document before me and I have looked at it rather carefully. The BBC said:
if we are not successful, there will inevitably be a reduction in our range of programme services.
The chairman of the BBC said:
I am worried lest these proposed cuts will have a greater effect on our service than is immediately apparent".
The deputy director general said:
I am deeply anxious at any cuts which might threaten damage to programme services".
So the BBC is not saying at this moment that cuts are inevitable; it is expressing its understandable concern. Time will tell. Certain of my remarks today will reassure the BBC that the damage will not happen.

Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary has paraded a range of quotations expressing grave concern on the part of

BBC executives. I repeat my question to him: if they are not successful, and if they return to the Foreign Secretary saying that they have been unable to meet the cuts by efficiency savings, will he consider again the funding necessary to maintain the 42 language services?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that in my own time. The hon. Gentleman says that the BBC has expressed concern at the reduction in resources given to it. He knows perfectly well that there is no organisation known to man—in the public or private sectors, the Labour party or the Conservative party—which does not express concern when its resources are reduced. That is the human condition. No one welcomes a reduction in resources. If the stewardship of the nation's financial resources is ever entrusted to the Labour party, and if it responds to every expression of concern by assuming that that concern is justified and therefore more resources have to be provided, God help the taxpayer.
We have a duty not to accept automatically all expressions of concern, but to look at them sympathetically and sensitively. We need to discuss them with the BBC to determine whether the concerns are justified and to see whether there are ways of making do with slightly reduced resources. Then we must come to a final decision on the implications.
The BBC has made it clear—on the radio this morning, for instance—that it is not particularly worried about next year. It is concerned about 1997–98 and beyond—on the basis of current planning figures. As the BBC has rightly said, what happens then depends partly on how many efficiency savings it can achieve and on the rate of inflation. None of us can be certain about either factor in future years. Thus there is clearly a great deal of hypothetical discussion, although it is only right and proper that such debate should take place.
Like the hon. Member for Livingston, I would say that we have no intention of removing successful language services. Indeed, I can go further and tell the hon. Gentleman that the evidence that we have suggests that life will be considerably easier for the World Service than is feared. The reasons for that flow from Government policies.
The major changes that we have asked the BBC to consider are on the capital side. We have asked it to identify alternative methods of funding, via private finance, totalling £22 million over three years. I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Livingston that on the basis of accumulating evidence it appears that there is scope for about £30 million of private finance funding for the World Service's capital programme. That means that the service will probably not just meet the target that we have set it without damaging its capital programme but will more than meet it.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will just restrain himself, I will give way to him later.
I come next to the specific question that the hon. Member for Livingston asked me and in which I know that my hon. Friends are interested. It arises out of what may prove to be the greater than anticipated success of the Government's private finance initiative. Both the Chief Secretary and I would look sympathetically at providing the flexibility to allow resources to be moved into


programmes, assuming that the PFI is successful. In other words, there will be flexibility because the Government's policy looks like being even more successful than the target that we gave the BBC. That is exactly what we would have hoped for, and it should reassure the House.

Mr. Banks: I find this intriguing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the private finance initiative will somehow produce free money which does not have to be paid for. How is the World Service to pay for it? The money will have to be paid for in terms of interest payments, leasebacks and so on, out of operating costs. We know that the World Service will already be suffering from a significant £8.6 million reduction in operating costs, so how will it afford to pay for the PFI?

Mr. Rifkind: The service will not be suffering a £8 million reduction in operating costs. There will be no such reduction in years one or three. In year two, there will be a £2.5 million consideration on top of the £2 million—a problem that can be resolved by a combination of greater efficiency and moving money from capital to current costs if the capital savings turn out higher than expected. The BBC is also actively pursuing a number of other ways of resolving the problem.
I noted that the hon. Member for Livingston—despite many requests from the radio interviewer this morning and from my hon. Friends today—refused point blank to give any commitment that any future Government in which he might be involved would increase or restore the cash allocated to the World Service. He took refuge in a general statement about not being prepared to see any successful language service removed. That showed that he clearly believes that there is scope, through efficiency and other means, to preserve the services. That is a powerful admission.

Mr. Robin Cook: Judging from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told the House today, he himself is not convinced that the savings can be met by efficiency or any other means; otherwise, he would not have outlined the new proposals for the World Service, which I welcome.
This debate will be justified only if the Foreign Secretary agrees that he is now saying that if the BBC World Service exceeds its target for the PFI, it can transfer that capital into revenue. Does he agree that that, in effect, is to concede that the BBC has made the case for more revenue support?

Mr. Rifkind: No, I am saying that there are a number of ways whereby we can ensure that the language services are maintained—one of them being greater efficiency. If, as now seems quite possible, the BBC more than meets its PFI targets, that will provide another means of ensuring the outcome that we all want without increasing public expenditure. The Government have every intention of being flexible; we have presided over the greatest ever expansion of the World Service and we are hardly likely to want to reverse that.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Do I infer from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said that he is confident that neither the range of language services nor the breadth of those services—including the vital English language services—is in jeopardy? Is he further

saying that if there should be a problem, he will be prepared to look at it with great sympathy and do what he can to help?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can give that absolute assurance. I am very relaxed about giving it because it coincides entirely with the priority that I personally and the Government as a whole attach to the importance of the World Service and our determination not to damage the very high standards that it has achieved under our stewardship.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Following on from interventions on this central question, may I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the private finance initiative? We all welcome that finance; however, at present it is planned, targeted, hopeful, but not definite. Were it not to be as successful as we all hope, and my right hon. and learned Friend has to address the concern expressed in the Opposition motion—the likely reduction in the range of foreign language broadcasts without expecting hope or help from the PFI—with regard to the next triennium, which is of crucial concern to us all, will my right hon. and learned Friend approach the matter with an absolute determination to preserve those foreign language services?

Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the Government's position and I am happy to state it. We have provided the figures for next year and the BBC has said that it is generally content with them. This debate is about how much it is reasonable to assume might be available for future years through greater value for money and the private finance initiative. The final figures for future years are not yet determined. The figures determined relate to next year and the BBC has said that they do not present a significant problem; it is very relaxed about them.
The BBC has expressed concern about what might happen from 1997 onwards. The final figures for 1997 will be determined next year in the public expenditure survey round. Much more will be clear then than is possible to determine at the moment about the precise sums that might be available through the PFI and any other achievements from greater efficiency.

Mr. Mike Watson: The Foreign Secretary seems to have conceded today that the World Service needs additional money. His civil servants conceded that fact five months ago, when they agreed in the joint capital spending review that it should receive an additional £5 million. What has happened since then, other than the Budget and the Government's long-term election prospects, to change that view to require the World Service funding to be financed through the PFI? What is the difference between now and August for the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been interested in using private finance for public sector programmes for more than the past five months. The outcome of the previous PES round was a major programme of private finance, which applied to all Departments. What I am saying today does not contemplate an increase in the total resources being provided for the BBC. What I said with regard to the private finance initiative was that it appeared that even more of the programme than had been anticipated looked like being able to be financed other than through the


taxpayer, and that that could allow a flexibility between the BBC's capital and current obligations, which would make it even easier for it to carry out its operating tasks.

Mr. George Galloway: Before leaving the question of private funding and the very high standards of journalism and editorial integrity for which the BBC has become famous, what can the Foreign Secretary tell us about the Government inquiry—which I presume must be going on—on the compromising through negligence by the BBC of its editorial independence through the commercial relationship with the private company Orbit Communications operating in Rome and broadcasting BBC World Service Television pictures to the middle east? The Foreign Secretary will know that the middle east has been repeatedly blacking out broadcasts from this country which carry news and film about the Government's deportation of the Saudi dissident Al-Masari. It is a critical matter for the Government, for the BBC and for standards of journalism in this country. Will the Foreign Secretary deal with it at this stage?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not know of any evidence which suggests that the BBC has in any way compromised its editorial independence. I do not believe that the BBC would for one moment contemplate doing so. If the hon. Gentleman has any allegations to the contrary, he must provide the hard evidence and not just generalised allegations. Moreover, that is not a matter to put directly to me. He obviously must put that to the appropriate quarter to be properly investigated. I have seen no such evidence.

Mr. Tim Renton: I remember discussions between my right hon. and learned Friend and myself about the importance of the BBC World Service when we were both Ministers of State at the Foreign Office some years ago. It is clear that all hon. Members have come to the House today to praise the BBC World Service and not to bury it. It would, however, be helpful to the House if my right hon. and learned Friend would explain how he envisages the £30 million from the PFI being used. It is obviously very helpful to know that there could be £30 million available, but what area does he envisage it going into—the building and operating of transmitters, the leasing of them to the BBC World Service, and their eventual repayment many years ahead?

Mr. Rifkind: Two particular projects have already been identified as being likely to be suitable for the PFI. One is the Oman relay station and the other a small project at Bush house here in the United Kingdom. Of course there may be many other projects, but those two alone already amount to some £32 million compared with the £22 million target over three years that we have set the BBC. I accept that those projects are not absolutely guaranteed at the moment. Nevertheless, the signs are extremely encouraging; otherwise, I would not be referring to them in those terms.

Mr. Gary Waller: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government have a very fine record of support for the BBC World Service over the years. Does he agree that since there are severe public expenditure constraints, which must apply to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as they do to other Departments, it is all the more important that we should put our support behind the service, which covers the whole world and benefits so many other countries where

constraints must inevitably be tight? Is it not important to send the right messages—politically and to our friends overseas?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. His comments allow me to draw my remarks to a conclusion as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The Government took a strategic decision way back in 1979 to reverse the stagnation of the previous five years and to finance spectacular growth in the BBC World Service. Unlike the hon. Member for Livingston, we relied not only on rhetoric and protestations of good will, but on providing hard cash. Unlike the zero growth during the Labour years, the BBC World Service has enjoyed a 50 per cent. growth in real terms, a £166 million capital programme, and an expansion of its listening public around the world from 75 million to 133 million people.
As we are intensely proud to be the Government who have presided over that remarkable achievement, I can without any difficulty at all give the House the assurance that the Government do not intend to do anything that would damage the BBC World Service. On the contrary, we look forward to expanding its activity and continuing to provide the very best World Service that the world knows at the present time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next Member to speak, I should tell the House that unless Members exercise considerable self-restraint, it will not be possible to call all those who wish to speak in this short debate.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Foreign Secretary may have bought off possible opposition from Conservative Members very cheaply as a result of his remarks.
I first came across the quality of the work of the World Service when I was a diplomat in Hungary in 1963–64. I saw the yearning among the Hungarian people for knowledge of the west and the way in which the BBC was able to spread democratic values, especially, of course, to young people, and with the English language. I had the privilege to speak for the Opposition on foreign affairs for nine years, and mostly dealt with the third world. I shall cite two examples of the way in which the World Service impacted on people who were important in their own countries.
I recall meeting a number of nomadic Arabs in a tent in the Sahara desert. Suddenly there was a noise: the alarm on the watch of my Arab host had sounded. He immediately left. I asked his colleagues why, and I was told that it was his practice always to listen at that time to the World Service, because of the purity of the Arabic language on it and because he valued what it told him about the world generally.
Later, I was with the present Lord Healey at a private dinner in State House in Lusaka, with the then President Kenneth Kaunda, who had listened to a debate from this House about Africa on the World Service. He clearly used the World Service as a key source of his knowledge of world events generally. He told me how opinion leaders, statesmen and potential world leaders relied so much on the World Service. That said, I suspect that there is total consensus in the House on the value of the World Service.


The question is whether we are prepared to see that endangered, and whether that commitment is translated into cash and resources.
How can one try to assess the real value to Britain of that unique and respected service? What will happen if we opt out, or abandon part of that service, which may well be the result of the Government's policies? I heard the apologia from the Foreign Secretary in the House today and on the "Today" programme this morning. He said that the impact will not be felt this year. That is correct, because the budget for 1997–98 is the key concern of those in the World Service. He said that efficiency savings are possible, without seeking to put a figure on them. He must do so in the context of the favourable National Audit Office report and the reductions that have already been made in the budget for the World Service.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the private finance initiative. In principle, one cannot be against a contribution from the private sector, but, as colleagues have said, there are political sensitivities in certain areas. The private finance may or may not be available. The Foreign Secretary expressed confidence that it will be available, but there will certainly be knock-on costs of any contribution from the private sector. Those knock-on effects will mean a cost to the budget of the World Service.
The Foreign Secretary said that there will not be any impact on what he called "successful languages". It would be helpful for him to define what he means by that phrase. For example, the Finnish service may now be under threat, yet it is listened to by 25 per cent. of the population in Finland, and half the costs are covered by purchases from local radio in Finland. Is that a successful language? There are broadcasts to Afghanistan in Pushtu. Is that a successful language? Surely it is necessary for the Foreign Secretary to define what he means. What would be his priorities for cutting, when there is likely to be an impact on the range of services?
The Foreign Secretary said that there has been an increase in resources of 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is true. The listening audience of the BBC World Service has increased from roughly 80 million in 1979 to 133 million today. That shows that there is a correlation between audibility and the listening audience. Surely cuts in the capital service will prevent a further and similar expansion of the listening audience.
The Foreign Secretary said that there will be a cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in his excellent speech, put that in the context of all the unwanted Government expenditure on areas such as rail privatisation, where estimates are well in excess of £1 billion. That is unwanted and irrelevant, but, for ideological reasons, the Government are pressing ahead with it.
The Government are inclined to use brave words about our world position—phrases such as, "We are punching above our weight." What is clear from the way in which they are seeking to treat the World Service is that they are prepared to countenance a reduction in the effect of one of the key instruments which allows our country to punch above its weight.
We are now approaching a general election, when no doubt the platform rhetoric of the Conservatives will be along the lines of putting the "Great" back into Britain. Given the value of the World Service, the threat of this

potentially barbaric policy means that the Government are devaluing much of what makes us "great" abroad in the full meaning of that term.

Sir Edward Heath: Both Front-Bench spokesmen have rightly emphasised their pride in the work of the BBC World Service, and I join them fully in that. Those who listen all over the world will share the same view. Those who listen outside will not be able to understand why, having expressed that view, the debate then deteriorated into a petty little party squabble. They are not interested in what happened in 1977, and neither am I, for that matter—my autobiography will finish before then. They are not interested in what a Labour Government might do, should such a Government ever come about. The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly protected himself by saying that he wants to see the results before he can say what will happen in 1997. Therefore, it is essential to look at the real aspects of the problem.
Of course, when there is a financial review, the World Service and the BBC generally are considered by every Government. When a Government take office, they look at it. I recall that, when we took office in 1970, we looked at the World Service. One argument then was that things had changed so much in the 25 years since all this started. The amount of information available world wide had been limited, but, with modern technology, people could obtain information wherever they were. That was one side of the argument.
However, that was overthrown by the fact that, wherever the issue was discussed, in whatever part of the world, support for the BBC was so strong and so obviously in our interests that we said that it must continue. I am glad that the Government have greatly increased the amount going to the World Service for its performance.
I am worried about several aspects of the future of the World Service. I am not happy about privatising it. The suspicion will grow in other places in the world that the BBC is no longer completely independent. That is a great danger. What we learned in 1970 and ever since is that the greatest possible advantage of the World Service is the trust it inspires everywhere, and the confidence that people have in it. The outside broadcasts of some other countries, particularly the United States of America, do not have that confidence or trust. In fact, a great deal of what is heard is disbelieved, and rightly so.
As a general word, privatisation can go too far, as can Government ownership. I believe that this sphere should remain entirely under BBC control. The discussion about handing over Whitehall to private enterprise is incredible. There has never been an open discussion about it. Like the BBC World Service, Whitehall is renowned for its integrity and administrative ability. Will people say that all that remains the same when enterprise people take it over, and are there to make their own money out of it?
It is a horrifying thought, and cannot do the country, the House or our party any good. One knows of the low morale of so much of the civil service today, and that can only get worse with such discussions. So I am not at all happy about the idea of privatisation.
I do not accept that we cannot afford it. It is a small amount compared with total budgetary involvement. It is completely unacceptable to say that we are not in a position to carry on with what the BBC wants to do. We can and should do so.
Another argument is that to deny the BBC World Service some Government expenditure will make it improve its efficiency. I doubt it. Because the calculation for increased efficiency is too high, the instrument may be damaged. As the World Service will be unable to increase the efficiency demanded of it, I am afraid that it will have no alternative but to abandon some of what it does.
We have seen many examples of that, the greatest of which, alas, is the lack of emergency beds throughout the hospital service today, which has been caused because funding was reduced to such an extent. People said that that would make the hospital service increase its efficiency, but it reached the stage where that simply was not possible. Instead of putting funds into reserve for emergencies, we took them away to increase hospitals' efficiency. That is the most blatant example of how that philosophy has gone wrong.
Thus there is a severe limit on how much one can increase the World Service's efficiency. One must be immensely careful about that. As the Foreign Secretary cannot say what he will do in 1997, I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that we want him to ensure that the World Service maintains its full efficiency and coverage, including languages. He spoke clearly about the additional languages that have now been taken on. If there are more languages, let us take them on. With the service's increased range and penetration, we can cover vast areas of Asia, even though some countries may not want to be covered. That must be one purpose of our policy.
I said that people trust the World Service. I listen to it a lot. I always get the news from it, and listen to discussions on it when I travel and after a late night here, and I have come to the conclusion that the BBC World Service is now the only impartial part of the BBC. I do not say that from a party point of view but because of the behaviour of those on the other programmes.
In the great days of the BBC, interviewers enabled interviewees to explain their views, but that is not their position today. They are there to prove that the other chap is always wrong, and they never hesitate to make him look ridiculous, a liar or just unsuitable for interview. That is a deplorable development by BBC programmes, on both radio and television—perhaps more on television, because people like to be seen being unpleasant. The World Service has not been affected by that, and I hope that it will not be.
I repeat my request to the Secretary of State to safeguard the position. He should not be misled by privatisation and the thought of how well the World Service would do it. If it goes for privatisation, it will seek first to make money, and secondly, to influence the BBC if it so wishes. We want neither of those things. The Government can look after and control the BBC's expenditure perfectly well. They do so at present, and they can do so for the overseas programme.
I am glad that this debate has been called. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak for a few minutes. The matter is vital, because the World Service contributes enormously to respect of this country

and gives the rest of the world an impartial view of what is happening world wide, which is invaluable for the rest of the world as well as for us. When the Secretary of State replies to such a debate again in 1997 or 1998, I hope that he will say that we have kept the World Service and expanded it still further, and that we were not led astray by all the temptations of 1996.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Whatever first task fell to me, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, none could give me more satisfaction, nor a more challenging task, than to focus on the BBC World Service. As other hon. Members have said, it has an outstanding past. As this debate emphasises, it is going through a difficult present, but what matters most is its future, which must be our concern today.
How can 150 million people be wrong? That is how many people around the world tune in each day, by conservative estimates. The BBC's estimate is 133 million, excluding China, Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan, where many more millions of people must listen. The size of the BBC's international audience and influence is unrivalled.
The most chilling comment that I have heard recently about the World Service was from an insider, who said:
The threatened cuts, with their effect on operating budgets and capital investment, could lead to a slow, lingering death. The BBC will not be a Broadcasting Organisation worthy of the name in the 21st century. It will wither and die".
Good housekeeping, financial prudence and private finance initiatives all have their place in good government, but I fundamentally worry that the Government's difficulties in controlling expenditure in the vast spending Departments lead them to be thoughtless and arbitrary in small monetary cuts aimed at vital successful British endeavours such as the BBC World Service, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and the Commonwealth Institute, where cuts endanger the whole endeavour and are not merely excisions at the edges.
The latest comment that I have heard was from a business visitor who returned from Kuwait yesterday. He said that, at an embassy reception, a group of other European ambassadors declared that they would give their eye teeth to have a service such as the BBC World Service for their own countries. It is beyond their comprehension why we should for ever be cutting it back instead of expanding it.
Demise may not be an exaggeration, given the huge investment needed for technological advance, such as putting the World Service on the Internet, digital broadcasting and replacing worn-out transmitters. Even the Foreign Office admits that audibility is vital.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not still a procedure of this House that one does not read a speech? The fact that this speech was circulated beforehand so that everybody has it, and it is now being read, cannot be correct.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is accepted that only Ministers should read speeches. On the whole, however, the Chair takes a tolerant attitude on that. If it were strictly enforced, a good many hon. Members might feel very uncomfortable.

Miss Nicholson: As I was saying, audibility is vital. If one cannot hear, it is no good—I should know.
If Britain had no independent voice in the world, this country would be a poorer place culturally, educationally and economically. British business says that the World Service boosts British trade in securing exports. In a recent survey, the top 50 United Kingdom companies said that the BBC World Service creates an aura of trust for Britain abroad and makes their job easier. The return in trade and export earnings must be vast.
If the World Service did not exist, not only Britain would be deprived. The whole world would be a poorer place, as so many parts of it rely on the World Service for factual, impartial broadcasts and for that invaluable commodity, the truth, which is in short supply in times of conflict and danger. In times of crisis—wars, famines, revolutions and earthquakes—the BBC's audience overseas rockets. In the affected region and the country under scrutiny, many people rely specifically and only on the BBC for news. How can Ministers evaluate that in terms of pounds, ecus or roubles? The World Service is a brand leader without equal, envied around the globe in war and peace.
I am sure that the new BBC chairman will be successful, and that his fund of knowledge and experience will be put to good effect, but I am sad that the procedure of the appointment and its announcement by the Government did not adhere to the constitutional position in the 1981 BBC charter. We must not drop full preservation of political impartiality, as the Government have done.
As we have already heard, the BBC also exports the English language, not just on the air but in educational videos, audio tapes and written packages. Millions listen to it for that reason alone. What value can be put on that internationally? The extensive and growing use of English in the world not only involves transmitting our language but boosts the work of our publishers and authors.
In political and strategic terms, many world leaders, having had their first contact, when young, with British values and activities through the BBC World Service, retain a special relationship with us, and a fondness for our attitudes, which influences their decisions beneficially in favour of our views.
What about human rights activists and political prisoners, such as Solzhenitsyn and Aung San Suu Kyi, and hostages such as Terry Waite? How did they praise the BBC World Service? They saw it as their lifeline and morale booster, especially the emergency Gulf link programme, which was the forerunner of other lifeline crisis programmes for Bosnia, Rwanda—whose programme was partly non-governmental organisation funded—and Somalia when they were otherwise unreachable. How can that be measured in money?
We must not forget the World Service's science, development, environment and health education programmes. Radio reaches where other media cannot—to the blind and the illiterate, for example. As I know, television reaches where the deaf cannot understand in any other way, through subtitling.
How many hundreds of babies in India may have been saved from a lifetime of blindness through BBC World Service radio broadcasts on the importance of vitamin A? How many babies in Peru and Bolivia have been saved

from death at birth by the BBC's "Quecha" health programme? How many teenagers have learned to avoid the risks of HIV and AIDS, and how many civilians have learnt how to avoid the risks of land mines? This development may be cheap to the Government, but it is beyond price to those who receive it. How do we add up the lost eyes and limbs in the profit-and-loss accounts?
Selfishly, I declare a keen interest in the BBC Arabic service, the value of which I have seen in refugee camps in the Persian Gulf.
The value of the World Service is therefore incalculable, while the cuts and their effects are all too frighteningly calculable. We know the figures: a modest, in terms of the national Budget, £4.5 million cut in the financial year 1997–98. That will amount to a £10 million shortfall in the overall operating budget of £135 million. To put it in a national budgetary perspective, that is the cost of three or four modern aircraft, of which we lost three last week.
I say most sincerely that we must also be careful that the Government, in forcing the BBC to pursue the private finance initiative, do not compromise political and commercial impartiality. The necessity for long-term planning makes the PFI a fragile answer.
Perhaps the cuts are being made in the wrong places and for the wrong reasons. The BBC World Service has just dropped French for Europe, and the German service, already reduced, may be cut further. That is in despite of our membership of the European Union and the need to put over Britain's views in countries where many people still do not speak English.
The entire European Union surely seeks to hear our values, and listens keenly to statements of our interests. Our thoughts are needed in the democratic development of the Union. Fifty per cent. of the BBC's transcription topical tapes service, which accounts for much of the work in the developing world, has been cut off. That is surely another implicit cut in overseas aid, this time in education.
Of course, not everything is gloom and contraction. The BBC has played a valuable part in training and in revitalising broadcasting. Despite international competition and the end of the cold war, audiences are increasing. New services have been started in Macedonian, in Azeri for Azerbaijan, and in Uzbek for Uzbekistan. The Arabic service, which proved its worth again in the Gulf war, may expand alongside the newly created Arabic television service.
Some countries re-broadcast the BBC 24 hours a day—Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. A new joint service, which began on 1 January in partnership with a United States station in Boston, is attracting many more listeners to hear our values, culture and output in north America.
That success story can he disrupted by the cuts we are discussing. The BBC has to invest to survive. It plans to put its service on the Internet, not only in English but in, for example, Cantonese, to exploit high computer ownership in Hong Kong. Surely that will be a valuable back-up to our influence in Hong Kong after the transfer to China in 1997.
We have already heard that the BBC has to replace its weak and aging transmitter in Masirah and relocate it on the mainland of Oman at a cost of £30 million, to be


funded under the PFI. That involves not only the difficulty that he who pays the piper calls the tune but the question of repayment, which will place a further burden on operating costs. Yet that transmitter and its impartiality are vital for reaching the Persian Gulf and the Indian subcontinent, where the BBC has such a large and vital audience, with vast trading potential; and, in the case of the Indian subcontinent, English is an inherited language.
The cuts, combined with necessary investment, will also, in time, put more foreign language programmes at risk—perhaps 25 per cent. of them, or 10 out of the present 40. That means that threats will hang over transmissions in Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Hungarian and Romanian, and perhaps even in Serb and Croatian, to the cauldron of the Balkans. Hon. Members will recall what an important factor the BBC was in the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, the abortive Hungarian revolution, the overthrow of President Ceausescu, the collapse of the Warsaw pact as central Europe rediscovered democracy, and above all the ending of the communist stranglehold on the USSR.
It is possible that the Spanish and Portuguese services to Latin America may be dropped.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way on the subject of Latin America?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The rule is quite clear. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not wish to give way, he or she is under no obligation to do so.

Miss Nicholson: Latin America is a vast area of more than 300 million people, with enormous trade potential for the UK, as so many recent ministerial visits indicate.
Not so long ago, during the Falklands war, the UK Government created their own Radio Atlantico del Sur, which proved so amateurish and ineffectual, whereas World Service correspondents were greeted in the Falklands by banners of gratitude proclaiming, "God Bless the BBC!"
Foreign Office Ministers would be foolish to ignore, as they have in the past, the dangers of the Falklands sovereignty dilemma, which still exists, as does Argentina's deadline of the year 2000 for taking over the Falklands, just when there may be vast oil riches to be found off their shores.
The Government continually fail to learn the certain lessons of the past in order to anticipate the uncertain lessons of the future. I fear that, where the dictators and oppressors have failed, our Treasury Minister bookkeepers, aided by a weak-willed, blinkered and ostrich-minded Cabinet, will succeed in weakening or eventually silencing altogether a powerful voice for Britain.
In conclusion, I have a couple of old tributes that are well worth repeating. They may stick in the minds of Ministers more than anything else. Even a rival and critic such as Teheran Radio said:
England without the BBC is a lion without mane or tail, whose funeral will soon be due.
The New York Times journalist Mr. Malcolm Brown famously declared:
The BBC is, for the free mind, what Oxfam is for the hungry.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is always a pleasure—I hope that I am being duly chivalrous—to follow the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), even if I am tempted to be somewhat more caustic bearing in mind the fact that she made my new year considerably more active than it might otherwise have been.
I hope in this speech at least to say something that my hon. Friends do not know that I am going to say before I say it. I will be succinct because many hon. Members want to speak. First, I shall briefly talk about my personal connections with the BBC World Service. I am sure that the memories of many hon. Members will be similar.
My connection goes back to a Cambridge university expedition in 1961 across mountains and deserts which involved camping and all the rest of it. What happened to me then can be summed up by the only quotation that I want to use, because it says it all. It is from a letter that came to me from Sarah Reynolds in Suffolk as a result of the publicity surrounding the financial problems of the World Service. She wrote also to her own Member of Parliament.
Sarah Reynolds was on the edge of the Sahara desert in temperatures of 45 deg C. She wrote:
I heard voices outside and the sound of static. Upon investigation I found a group of people crowded around a tiny transistor radio. They were listening to the BBC World Service (Africa service in French).
When the News was over, I asked them why they did not tune in to Radio Niger-it would be so much easier to listen to. 'Because we would hear what the government wants us to hear,' I was told. 'We can trust the news we hear from the BBC to be the truth.' 'Would it not be easier to listen to Radio France International?' I asked. 'We prefer to listen to the BBC World Service.'
That is what she was told.
I shall telescope my comments by adding that, many years ago, I married an Iranian woman. By means of stories and a history which are too long to relate, the 1979 Iranian revolution occurred—when Ayatollah Khomeini was sitting under a tree in Paris, as some hon. Members may remember—and there was a considerable outcry against the BBC World Service, which also affected the British Government, from the Shah of Iran's Government.
I found myself on the other side of the fence, in the sense that I was asked by the then Iranian embassy to act in effect as an unofficial monitor of the BBC World Service. I spent some days over there scrutinising the scripts, including what had been left in and left out, according to the editor's pencil. I have no doubt that, although a Government who were a prominent ally of this country fell in that revolution—the final consequences of it have not yet been seen—the BBC World Service, much to the detriment of my wife's family, told the truth. Long may it continue to do so.
Since 1985, I have had the pleasure of helping to lead various World Service campaigns in the House, but it has not been roses, roses all the way—it is not today. Bearing in mind the enormous service that the BBC has rendered to the country, it has always had difficulty in making its case. We have seen elements of that difficulty in this debate. As this has been mentioned, I remind the House that, although we are grateful for the Government's audibility programme, which began in 1982, there was a considerable campaign, lasting several years, during the


mid-1980s to get BBC World Service Television off the ground. The then Prime Minister resisted the launch of that project, during which time CNN took off. I firmly believe that, had World Service Television got off the ground when we wanted it to, CNN would not be in its present position of almost world paramountcy.
We had to mount another campaign at the beginning of this Parliament, in the 1992–93 Session, in relation to the triennium that is still running in the current financial year. I am grateful for all the support that the all-party early-day motion received—400 signatures. I think that the House, by choosing to express its appreciation of the BBC World Service through so many signatures, and bearing in mind those who do not or cannot sign early-day motions, passed its verdict. That was the third largest number of signatures to an early-day motion, coming after something like maternity and the second world war. That was the sort of class that we were in.
The objective of my speech and the debate is to underline the importance of the work of the World Service. I shall limit myself to mentioning specific points on that subject and discussing the need to protect the World Service's operating budget, our major concern, for the next triennium, 1997 to 2000.
I should, however, first briefly mention the specific work of the service. Many of the words of praise for the World Service should also, in some measure, be addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is beginning to get a slight complex—I have sympathy with it—about the massive outcry on behalf of the World Service. We should also not forget the important representative work that is done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or our old friend, the British Council. I could expand on that, but this debate is on the BBC World Service, for which the House has already shown its support.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that we could maintain the World Service's budget if we really wanted to do so, and that the money involved is not very great. There must be a Treasury fault line somewhere. In government, one understands that, when one is engaged on a tough public expenditure round, cuts must be seen to be fair and distributed across the board. Any system that is not sufficiently flexible to protect something like the BBC World Service cannot, by definition, be a very good one.
We have discussed the plans for the future of the World Service, and it has been praised. I want to discuss its budget. First of all—as has been merely mentioned, not underlined—the World Service is already making efficiency savings, and has been for some considerable time. It has recently been the beneficiary of a very favourable National Audit Office report, and I should like to think that such checking and cross-checking had an effect on a tight public expenditure round. Only last summer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service conducted a capital review, which was made public in August 1995.
The review identified, perhaps before the Treasury came into the picture, a considerable need to increase capital expenditure during the next triennium. Perhaps it is intended that that expenditure will be derived through different means—the private finance initiative. I am very

close to the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on that. The PFI generally seems, in the almost frenzied atmosphere that surrounds Budgets these days, to be assuming an almost holy role: the PFI is brought in on this, and it is wheeled in on that. We are dealing with something that is not necessarily the easiest area for the PFI. The private sector is not always the best risk taker.
The great reliance on Masirah island and the plan for a middle east relay station in Oman account for the vast proportion of £32 million. The relay station is a classic example of where the PFI could be used, because it is located in the middle of a turbulent region. It will be interesting to see whether the private sector will come forward as required to fund that development.
Many of the sites and much of the plant with which we are concerned require improvement and modernisation. They are in need of infrastructural improvement, rather than being natural candidates for the PFI.
Last, but not least, foreign Governments like to be dealing Government-to-Government, and they see the BBC as a part of the Government, although they all know that it is not. More important, however, those Governments have trust and confidence in the BBC's independence. That must not be undermined for any reason.

Mr. Tam Daly-ell: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this issue. Is there anything to stop Mr. Murdoch or controversial Arab-based funds, for example, becoming part of the PH? What would that do to the reputation of the World Service?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that question, because the Government of the day will have to keep a careful eye on that during the unfolding events. BBC World Service Television in the far east has also had its life made much more difficult because of a certain satellite which was bought up by Mr. Murdoch. So the lesson is there to be learnt.
I should like to end with my central anxiety. It was encompassed largely by an intervention I made earlier which was similar to one or two other interventions. The BBC World Service is already absorbing cuts during the current triennium. It has accepted the reduction in its capital budget—it is not arguing about that; it will absorb that. This is the: first time, in the current financial year, that the budget for a triennium has been disturbed during its passage. Although we all say how marvellous the BBC World Service is, we must realise that it must remain competitive and preserve its position. It is way ahead of the field and it must stay there. It is undoubtedly in the national interest to improve and expand the service.
On the issue of money, there are some differences in the figures, but there is a planned cut in Her Majesty's Government's capital and current contributions to the World Service budget. If the private finance initiative, on which reliance is placed—good luck to it—is successful and becomes more successful, that will have an obvious effect on the operating budget of the BBC World Service. We cannot consider one without the other.
As became clear during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a key question to be asked in relation to the motion and the amendment. That question is whether, in the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the PFI, there is likely to be a reduction in the range of foreign language


broadcasts. That is what the issues boil down to. It is difficult to vote against either the motion or the amendment. A further question for me is whether one can possibly support the Opposition motion or abstain from voting on it.
We hope that the PFI will be successful. It might be less successful than we now hope—I mentioned Oman, the biggest PFI project. Sooner or later, the Government may have to face a BBC World Service that says that it is strapped for cash and one or other of its language services will have to go. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made certain undertakings on that issue; he went one stage beyond the PFI. I, for one, accept my right hon. and learned Friend's good faith for the moment.
I offer a few words of caution: we are discussing the next triennium. The negotiations are starting now and, as we proceed through the year towards autumn, more of the factors will become clear. For the moment, we should minimise the cuts and be generous with the negotiations for the next triennium. I am sure that, once the negotiations are concluded, the subject will return to the House and every word uttered by the Government, whom I support, will then be reconsidered.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who is one of the few truly civilised Tories left in the House.
I declare my interests in the subject: I am one of the parliamentary advisers to the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents many World Service staff members. Before I was elected to Parliament in 1983, I was the union's full-time official and was responsible for its membership in Bush house and at Caversham. Now, my contact with it is as a fairly regular contributor to the excellent programme "People in Politics" and to BBC World Service Television.
One question that strikes me—I know that it strikes many other hon. Members—is how such a wonderful service can be provided under such primitive conditions at Bush house and elsewhere. The World Service is superb—we can agree on that across the House. It is one of the few British institutions, perhaps the only one, that are world leaders but, in relative terms, it is run on a shoestring. There is enormous cross-party support in the House for the World Service, but, despite all the plaudits that it receives in the House and around the world, it still keeps having to suffer cuts. Those cuts have come not just from this Government but from previous Labour Governments—that must be placed firmly on the record.
Who in the Foreign Office has the knife out for the World Service? It is clear that someone has. No one in the Foreign Office is listening to what we are saying in the House and someone is feeding poison against the World Service into the Secretary of State's ear. Someone has been feeding that poison into the ears of previous Secretaries of State, including Labour ones. I do not understand how we could even contemplate cuts, however small, in one of this country's success stories—this country is short of success stories, despite the propaganda and noise from Conservative Members.
The Secretary of State mentioned the need to reduce expenditure. Which successful multinational company that was the world leader in its sector would contemplate cutting its capital expenditure? Such a company would increase its capital expenditure to enhance its position as the world leader. It is nonsense; we would not expect any multinational company to operate in that way, so why should we expect the BBC World Service to do so?
If the Government want to find extra resources to fund the World Service, they should look elsewhere in the Foreign Office budget. They could look to the £7.6 million spent by the Department last year on official hospitality or to the almost £400 million spent by the Department every year on funding our embassies and high commissions around the world. I am not saying that they do not do a good job; I am not even saying that I have not raised the odd glass of champagne at a Foreign Office reception. But I would cheerfully give it up and I would certainly give up the second and third glasses to allow the money to be used to fund the World Service. There is plenty of opportunity in the Foreign Office budget for the Government to find the savings if they are so minded, but the World Service faces a cut of £5.4 million in its capital expenditure in the next financial year.
The Secretary of State said that the private finance initiative could be used, but how will that be funded? The money has to be paid back; it is not free money. Someone will expect the interest payments and the leasebacks to be funded—they will have to be funded from operating expenditure. Where else is the money to come from? I should be grateful if the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), would clarify that issue when he winds up the debate. As I understand it, future operating expenditure will be cut by £8.6 million in the first year of the next triennium. I should be grateful if the Minister would either confirm that or tell me that my facts are wrong.
The Government announced the decision on capital cuts and the availability of the PFI after the business plans of the World Service had been drawn up, yet Ministers have the nerve to appear on the "Today" programme or stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about efficiency. They tell the World Service to throw into the melting pot all the capital funds and projects that it has already drawn up and to see whether it can raise money in the private sector. That is a crazy way to run any business, particularly the World Service. The Government talk about efficiency savings, but the way in which they have handled the funding of the World Service is the opposite of efficient. The World Service still has to deal with the last round of cuts—about £6 million.
Part of the measure of the efficiency of any organisation, including the World Service, is staff morale. At present, morale is low because, despite receiving plaudits from politicians, both in and out of the studios, and from around the world, the World Service staff continually have to face further cuts. They face those cuts because some idiot in the Foreign Office feels that it is not sensible to invest taxpayers' money in the World Service.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that he was not happy to have privatisation in this sector. If the Government have their way, the BBC's transmission—both domestic and World


Service—will soon be privatised. That privatisation, in itself, poses a dramatic threat to BBC independence, especially that of the World Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned the censorship of the BBC's Arabic service over the subject of Dr. Al-Masari. The Secretary of State said that he wanted some hard evidence—it is there for anyone to see. The BBC's Arabic television service is transmitted via a Saudi-owned satellite relay station in Rome. The company that owns the satellite station is Orbit Communications, which in turn is owned by a cousin of King Fahd, and it blanked out the BBC's transmission. If we sell the BBC's transmission service—if the transmitters go and they are bought by foreign companies, perhaps companies that are fronts for foreign Governments—the independence and impartiality of the BBC World Service will be threatened.
It is the independence, fairness and impartiality of the BBC World Service that commend it so strongly to peoples throughout the world. If we were to damage that reputation, it would be a crime—a crime perpetrated by the present Government.

Mr. George Walden: I have a small interest to declare. I remember receiving a cheque from the overseas service of the BBC—I suppose that that is under the same rubric—in the 1980s. It was a cheque for a very small sum, paid to me for impersonating an English dustman to the then Soviet Union. It was a rotten script-I believe I wrote it myself. I subsequently impersonated a British politician for the World Service several times to several countries. Those are my interests.
I need not express sympathy or admiration for the World Service, because every right hon. or hon. Member who has spoken has done so for me. All I shall say is that it is a pity that sometimes we do not hear programmes of the same analytical depth on, let us say, BBC Radio 4. Some of the malt whiskies that we make in this country are delicious, but one can find them only abroad; it is similar with some of the World Service broadcasts. Would that one might hear them on the domestic services more frequently.
The establishment of BBC World Service Television was mentioned earlier. I have a bit of a "mea culpa" to make because, at the time when I joined the campaign to try to obtain some seedcorn—if my memory serves, only about £4 million—my pitch was that if we did not have that £4 million, nothing would happen.
I turned out to be wrong, in the sense that something got off the ground. It is a matter for discussion whether it might have done so sooner, and perhaps would have put in a better competitive performance vis-à-vis CNN if that £4 million had been found, but I must be honest and say that the Government were right, to the extent that the service did materialise and is doing well at the moment.
Listening to the debate, I have a sense of disproportion. It seems to me disproportionate that the Government should have allowed themselves to be put in the dock in the way that they have been during the debate and in the way that they have been by the media, for the sake of a

relatively small sum. I am occasionally accused of not understanding politics, but I understand that to make a big political issue out of a small number of millions is not a very political approach. I pride myself on understanding that, if nothing else. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) added to the sense of disproportion in the excessive forcefulness of some of his remarks. One cannot get away from the fact that the Government have enormously expanded the World Service, and should be congratulated on doing so.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave two assurances earlier, which have in effect punctured the debate. First, he said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that he would reconsider the matter if essential programmes were threatened. Secondly, he made what I understand to be an important concession, allowing capital to be transferred to revenue if that should prove necessary.
It is odd that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not say that on "Today" this morning, because everyone knows that "Today" is the real Parliament in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Mr. John Humphrys is the Opposition spokesman, the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker to boot. What better place might there be for my right hon. and learned Friend to make his two concessions? For that is what they are. I assume that those concessions were arrived at after a great deal of scurrying and patter of fast footwork in the Treasury during the day. Never mind; we got there in the end.
I hope that there is a lesson for everyone involved. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, an incessant, curiously aggressive attitude appears to stem from somewhere towards the World Service. I have experienced it personally, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, under the previous Labour Government. I happened to be involved as a principal private secretary at the time. The Government were literally counting up thousands of pounds for the Pushtu service, which was a strange way for the then Foreign Secretary, Dr. David Owen, to spend his time. Other things of greater magnitude were going on in the world.
I make no apology for my involvement because it was compulsory, but that seemed a strange thing to do. It struck me as strange that today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should have been forced to come to the Chamber—because I am sorry to say that that is what happened—because of those rather small cuts.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend direct his remarks to the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the dangers that might face the overseas service of the BBC if capital came in through a front company that might represent an overseas country, especially the dangers for the transmission services, which might lead to the blocking of the overseas service in parts of the world that are vital to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walden: As my hon. Friend invites me to express an opinion on that subject, I shall. It has always been my opinion that, as a rule of thumb in matters of privatisation, one should be—and I am—in favour of privatising anything that moves, provided that it does not affect or enter into what I call the cultural sector. By that I mean education, broadcasting and similar spheres. That does not exclude the involvement of private capital.
I do not want to discuss the specific case that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned, because I do not know enough about it, but if that is true, it seems to me to mark the limit that one should keep an eye on, in involving private capital in what are essentially, as I say in shorthand, cultural fields, because it is possible to get oneself into some nasty political spots.
Mention has been made of China, which I suspect will he very important in that regard in future. It will be extremely important for us to be able to broadcast freely to the Chinese because, as we all know, there is likely to be turbulence in that country.
Other hon. Members want to speak. I believe that I have made my argument. I welcome the reassurances that the Secretary of State gave. I only lament that it was necessary for him to give them in that form.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Throughout the House, the BBC World Service is regarded a precious asset to the United Kingdom, providing an international advantage that many other nations envy, including many of our industrial competitors. However, we are not here tonight simply to indulge in a paean of praise to the World Service.
The people who work in the BBC World Service throughout the world, in Bush house or elsewhere, are not all saints. They try to do a job on behalf of broadcasting and on behalf of the country, but not significantly on behalf of the Government of the country. From time to time, the Government have been led into conflict with foreign Governments who do not share our traditions and ways, because those Governments cannot understand that the BBC World Service is not the Government's voice and that the Government cannot direct propaganda over the BBC World Service, although the BBC World Service is very much the voice of Britain.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on prevailing to ensure that we held the debate tonight because, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made plain, were it not for the fact that we are holding the debate now, we should not have obtained the concessions that we have obtained from the Foreign Secretary, although I shall return to them later to examine their worth.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke elegantly and eloquently on behalf of the BBC World Service. While he was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)—who has had to leave the Chamber for a short time—remarked to me that the hon. Gentleman had stolen all the things that he wanted to say. I replied that the hon. Gentleman had stolen all that I wished to say also.
The hon. Gentleman gave a cogent declaration of the technical position. We are not here today simply to praise the BBC World Service; we must also examine the hard cash reality of its position and the Government's decision to abandon the three-year agreement unilaterally and to impose a separate settlement upon the BBC World Service.
The National Audit Office report to which the hon. Gentleman referred makes it plain that there is scope for improvement and savings within the BBC World Service. That is the case with any large organisation. The

report also underlined the fact that the World Service provides excellent value for taxpayers' money and that it is continuing to make considerable progress in that direction.
The Government's action in the second year of the triennial agreement must cast doubt upon their good intentions in the matter. How can a three-year agreement be broken unilaterally at any stage? What will be the status of the 1997–98 agreement? I believe that that agreement will be negotiated under different management, so to speak. None the less, if a Government give their word that an agreement shall last for three, five or however many years, they must honour that commitment. An agreement cannot be unilaterally re-examined, and the Government have destroyed their credibility in the matter.
The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers have faced questioning about BBC World Service funding during Foreign Office questions on the past two occasions and I was fortunate to be called to speak both times. On the first occasion, the Foreign Secretary quoted personnel at the BBC World Service very selectively—as he did again earlier this evening—in order to justify his position. He quoted the managing director, Mr. Younger, as saying that the World Service was looking at the application of the private finance initiative. He continued:
Equally, we will be taking a fresh look at the scope for further efficiency".
The Foreign Secretary did not go on to quote Mr. Younger's next comment:
However, I am greatly concerned at the possible implications for our programme services of the cuts planned over the next two years".
The Foreign Secretary also quoted the chairman of the BBC up to the point when he said:
On the other hand, I am worried lest these proposed cuts will have a greater effect on our service than is immediately apparent".
The chairman went on to say:
As we explore the Private Finance Initiative and other projects, we will keep the Foreign Office closely informed of our progress in minimising damage"—
he did not say "avoiding damage"—
to the services we supply to over 133 million people".
That brings me to the PFI and what has been said about it. No one, including the Foreign Secretary, has confirmed whether the Government are prepared to underwrite the on-going negative revenue effects of a successful PFI. In BBC World Service terms, the more successful it is, the greater effect it will have on the operating budget. Are the Government prepared to underwrite it and, therefore, insulate the World Service from the effects of increased revenue payments? If they are not, they are simply seeking to buy a short-term benefit from reducing capital today at the expense of long-term liabilities on the operating budget tomorrow.
The perceived independence of the BBC is at the heart of its international reputation. The hon. Member for Leominster referred to the effects of the television transmitter and to the problems with the Star satellite in Asia. Hon. Members should consider that situation for a few moments. The satellite used to carry BBC World Service Television—it is not funded by the same agreement, but it provides an instrumental lesson—to the far east. It was bought by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch—if it was not News International, it was certainly one of its subsidiaries.
Mr. Murdoch wanted to beam programmes into China, but the Chinese Government objected most strongly to the line that they believed the BBC and Britain were taking with regard to Hong Kong. As a consequence, the Chinese Government blackmailed—I hesitate to use that word, but I believe that the House will understand the pressure that was applied—Murdoch television to replace BBC World Service Television on the satellite. They were ultimately successful, as I believe that it has now been replaced by CNN or something else.
That means that a large part of south-east Asia cannot receive BBC World Service Television. It demonstrates clearly that once the infrastructure is in private hands, it is susceptible to political interference and corruption. I think that that serves as a lesson for the BBC in the future.
I come now to the purpose and the effect of the BBC World Service. I do not think that we are being culturally myopic or adopting a little Englander or little Britain mentality if we say that the BBC World Service is the best in the world. One of my constituents, who is also a very good friend, is a Sri Lankan Tamil with relatives living in Sri Lanka. When Rajiv Gandhi decided to send the ill-fated Indian peacekeeping force to intervene in the civil war in Sri Lanka and it invaded the north of the island, my friend was obviously very concerned about his family's fate. He contacted his relatives in Colombo in order to ascertain whether everything was all right.
My friend spoke to his father and asked him what was going on. His father replied, "We are not really sure. We are all fairly safe, but we are trying to find out what is going on." My friend then asked how he was doing that and his father replied, "We are listening to the BBC World Service." Members of that family were not listening to national radio in Colombo or to All India Radio; they were listening to the BBC—and they were listening particularly for Mark Tully. My friend's family was listening to the BBC, first, because the BBC was more likely to know what was going on and, secondly, because it was most likely to tell the truth.
We must not jeopardise the BBC's status in that regard. The World Service is not simply an excellent and significant asset to this country, which represents good value for money: it is the greatest and most powerful international advocate of the values for which this nation stands.

Sir Peter Emery: I am speaking at this late stage of the debate because I believe that the matter should be considered in a perfectly calm and logical manner. We have achieved that aim for about half the debate, but it certainly was not evident in the approach adopted by that rather disappointed little lady, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), who, as a Conservative, was entirely frustrated at not being promoted within the Government. Her suggestion that the BBC World Service would wither and die is the most nonsensical statement that has been made today and I believe that the remainder of her speech can be dismissed on the same basis.
I suggest that there is something very wrong in the House when, for the first time in my 35 years' experience, a Back Bencher circulates a speech prior to its delivery

and then reads it verbatim to hon. Members. If we have reached that stage, we may as well adopt the American system of placing speeches in the record and therefore lose all opportunity for debate in this place.
No hon. Member would argue that the BBC World Service does not fill an essential need that no one else in the world can supply. The BBC World Service does its job with efficiency and with a degree of informed opinion that is unknown in any other national broadcasting service. As has been mentioned time and again, most importantly the World Service is trusted—and it is trusted most where the news often takes the form of propaganda rather than the truth. It is in those places that the BBC World Service is most appreciated.
The BBC World Service is particularly important to the emerging nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States. As treasurer of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, I speak with some authority when I say that the emerging democracies listen to the BBC World Service. When no one else could fill that role, they received instruction from the World Service about politics and about running democratic institutions and local government. Broadcasts in Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Uzbek and now Kazakh are a major step in that direction.
It is with considerable pride that we are able to claim that the number of potential listeners, or those who listen from time to time—the total is now 133 million—is likely to grow over the next three to five years.
Let us consider the private finance initiative and the proposition of privatisation. The suggestions of the possible dangers reflect a misunderstanding. If private capital is used purely for building and capital assets—projects that would normally have to be financed by the taxpayer—and there is what would normally be a kind of sale and leaseback but in fact is a contract to build with a set leaseback over a period, many of the worries that have been expressed will disappear.
What of the idea that we shall be eating into Supply expenditure? What is the return on any capital that is borrowed? Interest on that capital must be obtained in some way, and it is usually linked to come from Supply expenditure.
I am not for privatisation for the sake of it. I support the process, however, where it can be seen to have a direct benefit in releasing the taxpayer from having to provide moneys. If that is the result, it is excellent. It has been suggested that private finance can produce about £32 million for capital compared with the Government's allocation of £20 million. Part of the Government's money, not private money, would come back into the Supply sector. That must he beneficial. There is much business sense in the way in which that approach could be carried forward.
I have had discussions with the World Service. I have often broadcast on the service, way back from the 1960s. It was fearing a 10 or 15 per cent. cut in Supply expenditure, but that has not happened. It is important[Interruption.]—to understand that the minimum action has been taken. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it should not affect any aspect of the World Service's broadcasting. We must have that


assurance. Indeed, I thought that that assurance had been given a long time before the debate. The assurance was not dragged out as a result of the debate. The assurance—[Interruption.]—goes a long way to overcoming any objection that can—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House knows my views on repeated seated interjections.

Sir Peter Emery: So that other Members can contribute to the debate—

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: No. I want to give other Members the opportunity to make their views known. The hon. Gentleman might be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The financial factors that the Government have put before us make good sense. It has not been understood that within the Foreign Office budget the greatest increases over the past five years have been made available to the World Service. That fact has not emerged from the debate. There have been cuts everywhere else. The Government's amendment makes sense and the Government's case has been properly presented. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not complain that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to allow me to intervene during his speech, or that he could not do so. I put one question to him in the hope that the Minister of State will answer it when he replies. I think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who was kind enough to give way to me, shares some of my worries. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has worries, which are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). What will happen when private finance is inserted into the system? It seems that neither the BBC nor the Government will have any control over that finance.
Let us suppose that the private finance initiative is invaded by Rupert Murdoch or by controversial Arab funds. What then happens to the reputation of the World Service? It is no good saying that we can have an end-user certificate. There will be no control. There could be takeovers. After two or three transfers down the line, the World Service could fall into hands that would horrify those of us who sit on green Benches.
I see that the Foreign Secretary has escaped—he has left the Chamber—doubtless for good reasons. I put my question bluntly to the Minister of State. Will he use 30 seconds, a minute or whatever it takes to set out the Government's contingency plans, if the PFI fell into hands that neither side of the House would deem to be satisfactory, in responding to a basic trust that is at the very core of the World Service?
That is all that I have to say.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Not for the first time, I find myself in considerable sympathy with

the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for whom I have enormous regard. If anybody deserves the title "honourable", he does.
I am grateful, of course, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for his assurance, and for the personal care and attention that he has devoted to the BBC World Service. Not for half a second do I question his commitment, still less his integrity. I am troubled, however, about the injection of private finance, and potential reliance on it for the BBC. It is almost a contradiction in terms.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that some things should rightly and properly be funded from the public purse. I can think of nothing higher in that category than the promotion and protection of Britain's interests abroad.
It is a great pity that the Foreign Office had to suffer any cuts in the recent expenditure round. This may not be a fashionable view in all quarters of the House, but I believe that the Foreign Office serves the United Kingdom extremely well. Of all the diplomats whom I have met during my travels abroad, I can remember only about three or four who I felt did not measure up to the job. It is a pity that cuts are directed at the Foreign Office at any time. All our ambassadors should represent the best of our country, and be able to do so without looking over their shoulders every second for auditors.
In the British Council and the World Service, we have two of the most cost-effective general ambassadors that any nation could possibly have. The World Service is renowned for its quality. We have heard anecdotes from Members on both sides of the House, and perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to contribute mine.
Some years ago, I was asked, after a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Australia, whether I would go to the Solomon Islands, way out in the south Pacific. I thought that it sounded terribly romantic, and was most eager to go. It was a most moving experience. I found a country that, although very poor, was rich in the personalities of its people.
What moved me most was going to a couple of schools there and speaking to fifth and sixth formers. They were remarkably well informed and knew the names of more British Cabinet' Ministers than most fifth and sixth formers in my constituency would know. When I asked why, the answer was interesting, as they did not get newspapers, which were generally a week or fortnight old when they arrived from Australia, and their own pidgin English papers concentrated almost entirely on local affairs. Nevertheless, they were well-informed young people. The answer was that they listened regularly to the BBC World Service. From that, they had derived a voracious appetite for knowledge and information, and good basic information about the world in which they lived, and particularly about this country. They had a great admiration and respect for this country. I could not help wondering as I listened to them whether we entirely deserved that, but that is another story.
If I needed an illustration of the worth of the World Service, I found it in the Solomon Islands. I found it, too, from talking to people from eastern Europe, when involved in a committee on human rights, which was allowed, for the first time, into the Soviet Union in its dying days by Mr. Gorbachev. We talked to people


there—Jews and Christians—whom we sought to help. To them, the BBC World Service, often listened to in conditions of extreme danger, had been a lifeline. One found the same in Romania, the former East Germany and in other countries. It really would be quite wrong if anything were done to jeopardise that magnificent service.
I was grateful for the assurance that none of the foreign language services will be threatened, and I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will, when he replies, be able to reinforce that assurance. I would be most grateful for my right hon. Friend's attention, which is difficult at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) seems to have engaged him in conversation.
I should also be grateful for another assurance. Important though the foreign language services are, the English language service is of paramount importance, and I hope that nothing will be done to jeopardise the breadth or depth of its coverage. It is the way in which many people learn the English language. It is through the World Service that many become acquainted with our literature, our culture, our politics and our democratic system. It would be most unfortunate if there were any contraction in that service.
This has been a useful debate. It has shown that every hon. Member who has spoken, on both sides of the House, is full of admiration for, and totally committed to, the World Service. I truly believe that that commitment is shared by the Government, and hope that it will be reinforced in the speech that my right hon. Friend will make shortly.

Mr. Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who encapsulated the mood of the House.
I owe a double debt to the BBC World Service. I worked there briefly, and it is part of my journalistic formation. But, more importantly, I remember being arrested some 14 years ago by the Polish communist secret police and being taken away to an obscure gaol in Warsaw, a very frightened young man taking support—financial and other—to the underground trade union, Solidarity.
After a couple of days, my fellow inmates brought me the news that I was on the BBC. I was immensely relieved that my name had been made known—it was not just the vanity of a would-be politician at having his name in the headlines—and that it had been uttered by the BBC. For some reason, I did not think that anything odd could befall me. That is the extraordinary power that that institution has had for many years.
Although the giant totalitarianisms of communism and fascism are no longer with us, there are still many dictatorships around the world. There are still many brave men and women, people of all parties—this is not a party political debate—and persuasions who go momentarily to lend a hand and give some help, and the BBC World Service provides a lifeline, in English and, indeed, other languages.
Concern has been expressed at the decision, some 45 years after General De Gaulle made his famous appeal to the French from the studios of the BBC to rally against Nazism, that the BBC, acting in advance of the budgetary pressure and cuts that were about to be imposed, dropped its broadcasts to France. That, perhaps, is no great loss, but around the world the French language remains a powerful instrument of communication. I hope that the BBC will continue to broadcast in French to Africa, south-east Asia and elsewhere where French is spoken.
Referring now to my time as a journalist, I wish to reinforce the point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the BBC is an extraordinarily mean and tight ship. One could mount a different debate complaining about the often harsh treatment of the many foreign language journalists who work at the BBC. They are placed on short-term contracts. Their futures are not secure. If they bring their families with them, they can make no long-term plans. That, perhaps, is a debate for another occasion.
The fundamental point about that extraordinary institution in the Strand is that it is the most remarkable repository of knowledge about the world. It would be a shame if any cuts reduced—for the whole of the country and, indeed, the Government and all of us who are interested in foreign affairs—that extraordinary source of knowledge.
Many hon. Members have raised concerns about privatisation. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) talked endlessly about business values, about running the BBC as a tight business. 1 found the description of the BBC as simply another profit centre regrettable.
Although, in essence, jamming no longer exists—we can go through it or overcome it technologically—there is a more modern form, where one seeks not to prevent but to buy or financially control the means of news distribution. We have seen the example in Asia of Mr. Murdoch succumbing—kow-towing—to pressure from the dictators of Peking to remove the BBC World Television Service from his satellite, and that is extremely worrying.
I hope that the Minister will give a very strong commitment. We have heard a concession, although I am not sure whether it is real or whether it is a phantom—one of those things hissing through the ether. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State really gave the pledge that has been called for by most hon. Members, which has been called for in much press comment, which much of the country demands, and which, in the interests of Britain, democracy and information, the world thoroughly needs.

Mr. Mike Watson: It is difficult at this stage of the debate to find something new to say. It is remarkable that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been as fulsome in their praise of the BBC World Service as they have. But perhaps it is not remarkable, because the organisation is held in great esteem by all hon. Members. We have all benefited from its services when travelling abroad.
Therefore, it is with some disappointment that we have to have a debate on cuts in the World Service, rather than on a more positive basis. However, we can use this debate, as we have done, to laud its many fine services, which are widely appreciated throughout the world.
In an intervention, I told the Secretary of State that I was concerned to have clarified the apparent increase in the PFI to £30 million, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has just referred. It is important that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), should clarify that when he replies. Many of us were concerned that there was a contradiction in terms in what was being done in respect of the BBC World Service over a very short period.
As I said, as recently as August 1995, the joint World Service and Foreign Office capital review body suggested that a further £5 million of capital spending should be made available to the World Service specifically for the new transmitter in Oman. Within weeks, the Budget comes along, the whole thing changes, cuts are announced, and only by utilising the PFI, which, as has been said several times, is not a cost-free initiative, can such capital expenditure now be achieved.
The Foreign Secretary was rather disingenuous when he referred to what the managing director, Mr. Sam Younger, had said about looking positively at the PFI, because, as far as I recall, he failed to say that Mr. Younger also said that he was
greatly concerned at the possible implications for our
the BBC World Service
programme services of the cuts planned over the next two years".
That is a much more telling comment than the previous one.
The Secretary of State also failed to give due emphasis when quoting the BBC's chairman, Marmaduke Hussey, as saying:
We will certainly bend all our energies to exploring the suggested approaches. But we are concerned that if we are not successful, there will inevitably be a reduction in our range of programme services.
Most people who have contributed or listened to the debate will accept that programme reductions are inevitable as a result of the cuts that have been announced. It in no way serves the Government's argument to say that such cuts are a small proportion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's cuts as a whole, so the Government are being kinder to the World Service, which everyone loves because it is a cuddly organisation with which everyone is friendly and with which everyone likes to snuggle up in bed. That may well be the case, particularly for people in some of the more remote parts of the world to whom the World Service can be a lifeline in many ways. But as far as hon. Members are concerned, the World Service requires proper funding in order to enable it to continue the job that it has done so effectively.
Just how effective the organisation is was clear to me as a member of the Public Accounts Committee receiving the National Audit Office's report at the end of last year. The report essentially commented on the progress made since the Public Accounts Committee hearing which representatives of the World Service had attended in 1992. The report was clear in its praise for the cost-saving measures that had been carried out, for the advances made in technology, and so on.
On the one hand, the Government praise the organisation, but on the other hand say that, unless it uses the private finance initiative, they will not allow it to expand. Therefore, we need clarification, as does the World Service, of what the £30 million involves. I am particularly concerned about that. It will involve leaseback for the World Service, but what sort of costs will that entail? It is not clear to me just how that would sit with the commitments that the World Service may already have in terms of capital spending. I hope that we can have some clarification on that.
I hope that the Minister of State will also clarify some of the answers that he gave during Foreign Office questions six days ago. On that occasion, he said:
The effect of the PFI … will be clearer once the World Service completes its discussions with the private sector."—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 201.]
In a sense, that is self-evident. It will be clearer, but that is not exactly helpful at this stage. There will clearly be substantial start-up costs and other operating consequences for any PFI project. The World Service needs a commitment that its operating budget will be protected. We have not had that today.
The Minister also said that real terms funding had been increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. That was the result of the previous Prime Minister's commitment to invest in an audibility programme—which, incidentally, has been praised again in the NAO report—but that also impacts on the joint capital spending review which was carried out which seems to have been jettisoned within weeks of being published.
We know that that is the result of the Government's short-term interests and their need to cut public expenditure so as to enable them to cut taxes. We had one cut in November, and doubtless we shall have a further cut next November if the Government can stagger on that long. The World Service and many other areas of public expenditure are suffering for short-term gain, as perceived by the Government. That in itself is reprehensible.
Many people throughout the world benefit daily from the BBC World Service. It would be a tragedy if some of those people were denied its services, which may be their lifeline. They may mean the difference between health and sickness, survival and death. The World Service contributes to such essential projects as AIDS education, reproductive health, women's education, and even, as has been mentioned, the dangers of land mines and how to avoid their horrific effects if disturbed. Such issues are of daily importance to people in many far-flung parts of the world, and that is widely recognised.
Equally, we need answers from the Government not just on which languages will be cut but on what people in far-flung parts of the world will do if the World Service is no longer available to them. Should they tune into Voice of America, Radio France International or Radio Moscow? I do not know what stations may or may not be available, but where there is an alternative, the BBC World Service is still everyone's first choice, and the Government must give a commitment to ensure that the funding is there to make it possible for such services to remain for people to whom they mean much more than many in Britain appreciate.
Arguments in favour of the World Service have come from both sides of the House this evening. Let the Minister of State now give the sort of commitments for which all hon. Members have been looking in the debate.

637 pm

Ms Joyce Quin: It is clear that the Opposition have been fully justified in the choice of today's debate, not least because we have forced the Government into giving the House assurances about the future funding of the BBC World Service, and we have caused them to think again. I rejoice in the fact that we have had some measure of success in that respect and I assure the Government, in turn, that we shall continue to monitor the matter closely because we are anxious that the World Service should be able not just to continue to do its valuable work for the future but to expand its services.
Many powerful speeches have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There has been a great deal of similarity in the contributions, all of which have shown clearly the great esteem in which the World Service is held. We have also been reminded that many well-known people outside the House and outside the country have had great reason to be thankful to the BBC World Service. Mention was made of President Mandela and the Burmese opposition leader, to whom I wish to pay special tribute. As The Economist put it just a week ago, if high-class endorsements were all that were needed to ensure the BBC World Service's survival, it would be in no difficulty whatever.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) talked about the Government being in the dock for what was really a small amount of money. That point was also made effectively by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) during Foreign Office questions, when he said that the BBC World Service should not be
jeopardised for the sake of the price of a mile of motorway".—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 202.]
I think that we would all strongly endorse that sentiment.
Grave reservations have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Labour Members about the way in which the Government have approached the issue. We have been concerned not only about the substance of the cuts, but about the procedure involved. We say strongly that the Government were wrong to interfere in the triennium settlement in the way that they did. That was a dangerous precedent that must have lost the Government a great deal of trust. The points that were made about that settlement by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), were well taken.
Many concerns have been expressed about the effects on the BBC's operating budget, especially in 1997–98. Although the Government have tried to deal with that in their concession today concerning the private finance initiative, I recommend them to read Hansard and consider carefully the reservations expressed by all hon. Members about that initiative in relation to the BBC World Service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have powerfully expressed concerns about that initiative's use, especially if there is any suspicion that the BBC's independence will be compromised. We shall monitor that matter closely in future months. The Government must not forget that important point. It would be good if the Minister dealt with some of those concerns in his winding-up speech.
Many hon. Members have pointed out that the cuts about which we are concerned today come on top of other cuts. The hon. Member for Leominster

(Mr. Temple-Morris) reminded us of his early-day motion two years ago, which attracted a great deal of cross-party support in the House. Concern was expressed then about the cuts that the World Service was facing and, since then, the Government have tried to impose further cuts. That renders many of the Government's statements about their support for the BBC World Service unconvincing.
It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, that there was welcome investment in the service in the early 1980s, but we are concerned that that investment has been undermined by the Budget announcement of cuts. This is the worst and most inappropriate time to undermine the BBC World Service because, more than ever, investment in new technology will be necessary.
An interesting article in the Financial Times yesterday talked about
A renaissance of radio for emerging markets
and
the launch of…three digital satellites to broadcast hundreds of high quality radio channels
to parts of the world that had not previously received such high-quality broadcasts. Labour Members and, I believe, many Conservative Members, want the BBC World Service to be at the forefront of those developments, and not to be put in the position of having to catch up subsequently, which would be difficult.
Hon. Members have said that the BBC World Service has a dual role: it brings great political prestige to Britain in the way in which it portrays our country, and, as our motion points out, it promotes tremendous "respect and goodwill" for Britain throughout the world. We also know, however, that it is valued by business interests, which feel that it is terribly important in promoting both the English language and an awareness of our country as one to do business with in future.
We pay tribute to the way in which the World Service has proved itself responsive to international events and crises. It doubled its output to former Yugoslavia during the recent events there, including FM re-broadcasts to Sarajevo. That work was important.
I was glad that mention was made of the importance of the BBC's English language service and of the English language teaching for which the BBC World Service is responsible. About 5.5 million people around the world sit down and study English as a result of BBC World Service broadcasts. Those people do not tune in casually; they are dedicated listeners who use the BBC World Service to learn English. The BBC World Service is an important part of the English language teaching industry. If one includes such things as that industry's publishing spin-offs, it constitutes one of the country's 10 largest invisible earners. That is a dramatic figure, which we should take into account in considering the World Service and its activities.
English language teaching through the World Service has some important achievements to its credit, including a tremendous increase in English use in the countries of central and eastern Europe and in parts of the former Soviet Union. We should not forget the importance of those countries to us in future and their commercial importance—we should be keen to emphasise that.
Many hon. Members have referred to the importance, and the difficulties at times, of our relationship with the Republic of China. I welcome the fact that the BBC World Service has reached agreement with many provincial stations in China, which reach out to a huge population, on the English language teaching work that the BBC World Service undertakes, yet we know that the Government have not been as supportive of the service as they should have been. I understand that the previous Foreign Secretary said that there would be a push to English language teaching, but, in the end, the push that was envisaged a couple of years ago during the London conference on Britain in the world did not happen. Again, we would like to investigate that for the future.
The BBC World Service's education programmes are vital—I refer to health education programmes to the third world in particular; the missing persons help line, which has been operating in Somalia; advice to people on how to dispose of land mines, which cause many tragic problems in the world; and how to feed children in conditions of poverty or near poverty. All that BBC education work is important and well respected, as, of course, is the impartiality and the independence of the BBC World Service's advice.
I endorse the comment that the BBC World Service is a world leader—it is a world beater and it leaves its competitors far behind. It deserves better treatment than the shabby uncertainties that have been forced on it by the Government. I am glad that, as a result of the debate, the Government have at least had partially to change their mind. We shall not hesitate to draw that victory to the nation's attention. Having said that, our motion corresponds closely to all the points that have been made by virtually all hon. Members in the debate. I therefore urge the maximum amount of support for our motion in the Division Lobby tonight.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): As the House will agree, we have had a lively debate. Above all, it has confirmed yet again the esteem and affection in which the House holds the BBC World Service.
It is worth repeating some of the good news. As we have all agreed, the BBC is a great national asset, and it has flourished as never before under the present Government. World Service output is at record levels: the service now broadcasts in 42 languages—that includes the core 24-hour English language service—and its programmes are re-broadcast by more than 900 radio stations world wide. As we have heard, it estimates that its world audience consists of some 133 million—although the figure could well be higher—which is more than twice the size of the audience of its nearest competitor.
That is a great success story for the World Service and for Britain. The Government have continued to provide strong financial support, because we fully recognise the high value and quality of the service and the important role that it plays in overseas representation. It has built up a reputation that is the envy of other broadcasters. That contrasts with the position at the end of the 1970s, when there was a critical need for the new investment in the World Service that we provided.
Funding had stagnated for some years when the Government made those investments—£166 million of capital up to 1991 to boost audibility, and £29 million for a

new relay station in Thailand that should come on stream later this year. Funding has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since we came to power, and those investments have enabled the BBC to achieve record audiences. BBC World Television News is available to 43 million homes and 111 countries, at the cost of not a penny to the taxpayer.
I hope that the debate has laid to rest many concerns that have been expressed in recent weeks, as well as some ill-informed comments. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, the BBC is operating in a fast-changing world; we must look to the future, and ensure a sustainable and forward-looking basis for its operations. We all agree that the World Service and its commercially funded companion services in the BBC world wide add up to a uniquely varied and effective overseas broadcasting operation, and we all agree that that should continue. If the debate has helped to clarify some of the complexities of the broadcasting scene and its funding and to set the Government's overall approach to the World Service in perspective, it has served a useful purpose. On 13 December, I chaired the annual ministerial meeting with the World Service: I found that a useful and positive occasion, and greatly enjoyed the discussion.
Let me now deal with some of the detailed issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members. Let me assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that there is no question of privatising the World Service. The private finance initiative provides a new way of funding capital expenditure by making greater use of private sector expertise and money, but under the PFI the World Service remains in control of both programme content and programme distribution.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: No. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to speak, and I now have very little time.
The World Service is the customer; the private sector assumes more of the risk that is inherent in capital projects. Under the PFI, there will be a contract for each item, the terms of that contract will have to be adhered to and actions will follow any breach.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) mentioned the Arabic television service. That service is funded commercially, not by licence fee or grant in aid. The BBC has made it clear that, when it signs such contracts, it must retain absolute editorial independence and control, even when partnerships with local broadcasters are involved. I understand that the BBC is currently investigating interruptions to the Arabic service; in the light of its findings, it must decide how best to take matters forward with its partners. There is no connection with the PFI or privatisation of transmission, and involvement of private finance and expertise in World Service capital programmes will not in any way affect the service's control over content or distribution.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that most forms of international broadcasting depend on a local partner. The only exception is short-wave radio. There can be no guarantee that particular partnerships will always work out; those partnerships are a matter for the BBC. I know that the BBC will always place its editorial integrity above all other considerations, which is entirely right.
In one of his knockabout interventions, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that there was a knife out for the World Service in the Foreign Office. He


explained that any reductions that had been made under successive Governments had been made by some mandarin in the Foreign Office. That is a pretty funny argument. Next year—I can give the figures for all three years if the hon. Gentleman wishes—the World Service current-cost reduction is 0 per cent.; that for the diplomatic wing is 4.1 per cent. In 1997–98, the reduction in current expenditure for the World Service is 1.7 per cent.; that for the diplomatic wing is 3.3 per cent. In 1998–99, the reduction for the diplomatic wing is 4 per cent., against yet another 0 per cent. reduction in World Service expenditure. If someone in the Foreign Office is out to get the World Service, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would probably say that that person is not doing his job.
We have preserved expenditure on the World Service as far as possible. We know how valuable it is: that is why we tried to preserve the triennium system, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin). I understand the concern that was expressed about that three-year agreement. One reason why the Government have gone to such lengths to minimise reductions in the World Service allocation for 1996–97 is that we recognise the existence of the triennium. Nevertheless, there could never be any absolute guarantee of funding, three years ahead, for the World Service alone, of all public bodies. As it is, the service has fared a good deal better than not just the diplomatic wing but every wing of the Foreign Office. That says a great deal not only for it, but for the way in which the Government have cared for it.
I was sad that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) introduced an element of exaggeration to the debate. Opposition Members forecast possible cuts in one or other language service, which I suppose was reasonable within the bounds of debate. Those forecasts were not correct, but they were reasonable. From the hon. Lady, however, we heard phrases such as "the silencing of the World Service" and "the withering and dying of the World Service". That is way over the top. The hon. Lady must have taken lessons from those masters of political hyperbole among the Liberal Democrats.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady did not allow any interventions.
The hon. Lady has had many friends among the Conservative party. I was saddened by her statement that she regarded certain Ministers as
weak-willed, blinkered and ostrich-minded".
That is not true, and it was sad to hear it from the hon. Lady so soon after she had been given so much support by, in particular, Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and at the Foreign Office.
In fact, the hon. Lady published her speech in advance. It was fascinating to note that she omitted two paragraphs. One read:
The BBC, of course, has its faults as well as its virtues. While the World Service is cut to the bone, there's fat elsewhere in an over-sized, bureaucratic, administratively top-heavy organisation, with too many advisory bodies.
That is how the hon. Lady described the BBC in her printed speech. Perhaps her courage deserted her—or perhaps that was another example of a Liberal Democrat speech in

which an hon. Member says one thing in the House and leaves the real meat for distribution to the constituencies. She left out another paragraph, and I am sure that hon. Members would love to read it. I was saddened by what she had to say. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is becoming impossible to hear what the Minister has to say. I address my remarks to people beyond the Gangway.

Mr. Hanley: The debate has shown a sustained record of Government support for the World Service. It has shown a World Service in flourishing condition. It has also shown the complexities and changing nature of the broadcasting scene and the need for fresh thinking, of which there has been absolutely no sign from the Opposition. Admittedly, the Opposition now accept that the private finance initiative may have something. The BBC must move with the times if it is to keep its place at the head of the field, and we are determined to give it every help in doing so.
The Government have produced the necessary investment for the World Service, which has freed the BBC to compete in a far wider range of overseas activities and to increase its representation. Of course, we must continue the drive for greater efficiency and we want to involve private sector finance and expertise more closely, subject to the BBC retaining complete control over its programming and distribution. The Government remain absolutely committed to the World Service and we intend to see it into the next century in the same flourishing condition that it enjoys today.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions and for the care that they have shown for the World Service in our discussions over the past few months. I also thank many Opposition Members for their care and concern for the World Service and for what they say privately to us outside the Chamber about their admiration for the way that the Government have funded the World Service.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 310.

Division No. 24]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin-Walker, John
Byers, Stephen


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell-Savours, D N


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F
Church, Judith


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)






Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Ian
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eastham, Ken
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Litherland, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fatchett, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Faulds, Andrew
Loyden, Eddie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fisher, Mark
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCrea, The Reverend William


Foulkes, George
Macdonald, Calum


Fraser, John
McFall, John


Fyfe, Maria
McKelvey, William


Galbraith, Sam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galloway, George
McLeish, Henry


Gapes, Mike
McMaster, Gordon


Garrett, John
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Gerrard, Neil
McWilliam, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Madden, Max


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maddock, Diana


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mandelson, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Marek, Dr John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Hain, Peter
Maxton, John


Hall, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Michael, Alun


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Harvey, Nick
Milburn, Alan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Heppell, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hodge, Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)





Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Alan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Paul
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Edward
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Olner, Bill
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stevenson, George


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Touhig, Don


Primarolo, Dawn
Trimble, David


Purchase Ken
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Randall, Stuart
Wallace, James


Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rendel, David
Wareing, Robert N


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Watson, Mike


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Welsh, Andrew


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salmond, Alex
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Clare
Mr. John Cummings and



Ms Ann Coffey.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Booth, Hartley


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Ancram, Michael
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butcher, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carrington, Matthew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William






Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wastage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Key, Robert


Elletson, Harold
King, Rt Hon Tom


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evennett, David
Knox, Sir David


Faber, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fishburn, Dudley
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Legg, Barry


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward


Forth, Eric
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lidington, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Luff, Peter


Gallie, Phil
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gardiner, Sir George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
MacKay, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Madel, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, Sir John
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector





Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spring, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Fit Hon Richard
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steve
Streeter, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddidk, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ward, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waterson, Nigel


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Willetts, David


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Michael Bates.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the BBC World Service on its international reputation for objective news and comment and records its appreciation of the valuable contribution it makes to promoting respect and good will for Britain; expresses its welcome for the 50 per cent. growth in real terms of its resources since 1979 as well as the significant increase in foreign language broadcasts over the same period; and shares Her Majesty's Government's determination to ensure that the World Service will continue to enjoy unrivalled success.

Training and Community Action

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government has failed to offer all members of society the chance to participate in building future prosperity; further believes that the Government has failed to achieve the investment in skills the British people need; deplores the cuts that have been made to the budgets of training and enterprise councils and the abandonment of the community action programme; and calls on the Government to ensure the workforce is equipped with the skills and training necessary to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
It gives me pleasure to move this motion at the beginning of the Year of Lifelong Learning. It is a great pity that the Government's major contribution to that year is to cut training and education budgets, thereby undermining the life chances of those for whom skilling and learning are crucial, because they provide them with the tools to be able to earn their living and to contribute to society. The Government's record of the past year has been shoddy: cuts and the closure of programmes. The budgets of training and enterprise councils were cut by £197 million, and the Government had the cheek to take part of that money, invest it elsewhere, and then claim that it represented an improvement in further education.
The November 1995 Budget announced a proposed cut in the departmental budget of 4 per cent., with £75 million taken from the training budget alone in the coming year. There was an interesting sleight of hand in the form of the announcement that there would be an increase in spending on training of £50 million over three years, but a one-year cut of £75 million. Three down and two up is the Government's usual cack-handed way of taking with one hand while pretending to give with the other.
In every single major area of Government training programmes there has been a reduction in funding, at a time when people who are unemployed and seeking work have been more desperate than ever for an improvement in the availability of the skills that they need. Seven hundred and thirty thousand young men and women between the ages of 16 and 25 have no job and no training and are not in any education place. Nearly 300,000 of them have been unemployed and without a place for more than six months.
Special needs training and education have been drastically affected. A recent report by the training and enterprise councils in the voluntary sector showed a general 10 per cent. cut in the number of starts for those with special needs in the past 12 months; in some parts of the country there have been cuts of a staggering 40 or 50 per cent.
The switch to outcome measures has provided an incentive not to get young people into work but to get them out of the dole queues and off the register, whatever the consequences in terms of failing to give them qualifications that would equip them with the portable knowledge and skills to be able to return, time and again, to the job market and take up paid places in work.

Mr. John Sykes: Why should the Government or the Conservative party take any lectures

from the Labour party or from the Minister about the jobless and job opportunities when the hon. Gentleman's party wants to impose a social chapter on this country's employers?

Mr. Blunkett: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why they should take lectures. The Government have tripled the number of people who are unemployed, even on existing figures and by taking into account the 20 or 30 adjustments to the unemployment statistics and the way in which the Government have treated the training budget.

Mr. Sykes: What about the social chapter?

Mr. Blunkett: All we get is a very silly heckle of "What about the social chapter?" Unfortunately, even if we had signed the social chapter, it would not have protected us from the cuts and closures that the Government are inflicting on those seeking training and wanting work. The Minister—I nearly said the shadow Minister, seeing as I have been described as the Minister. The Government are so used to putting themselves in the place of the Opposition and thinking of us as the Government that it is quite hard not to predict too soon the outcome of the next election.

Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will not give way again for the moment. I will make some progress.
I remind the House that on 7 January, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was reported in a Sunday newspaper as having the cheek to say that getting a job made the unemployed happy. I thought that that showed the cheek of the devil for somebody who has been responsible in a Government who have accelerated unemployment over the years to the point where they can claim credit for a slight drop in the number registered as unemployed.
I return to the key issue of those with special needs who have been denied training and therefore the chance of a job because of cuts and closures. I return to the way in which the training and enterprise councils have been cut, the way in which the budget for training for the coming year has been reduced, and of course the way in which training has been switched to short-term rather than long-term provision to provide qualifications for life.
We need to debate a very serious issue. Are we a low-tech, low-wage, low added value economy that has short-term measures to get people off the dole queue, or are we a high-tech, high-wage and high-investment economy that skills people so that they are able to earn their living, add value at work to the amount that they are paid, contribute to society and, above all, have the knowledge-based skills to carry them through an ever insecure and uncertain jobs market?
The security that we can provide by equipping people with the ability to move from job to job and from workplace to workplace and to re-adapt several times in their working life is crucial to the future of Britain. That is why we are condemning the Government not only for the cuts that they have made but for the short-termism that underpins them.
If there is a reduction—the Government have reduced the budget for special needs training—in the long-term emphasis on gaining qualifications, people become equipped people only for further unemployment and


short-term relief. They end up being placed in a short-term, low-paid job only to find themselves back in the dole queue through a revolving door. That is obviously short-sighted and extremely unproductive for our needs as a nation.
Our emphasis on providing a stakeholder economy in a nation that pulls together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hear some "Ahs" from Conservative Members. Our emphasis is on a stakeholder economy provided by the Labour party, rather than a Burger King economy provided by the Conservative party of fat cats and hot dogs instead of investment in long-term training and skills to enable people to do a job.
Comments that have been made on Grand Metropolitan remind me of the way in which the Government have undermined the careers service, which, as we have seen in south London, is crucial to training and employment.

Mr. Sykes: On the subject of burgers, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a large manufacturer in my constituency that supplies various food chains with a specific product. People in my constituency have been guaranteed jobs because that company could not afford to build a factory in France due to the costs of the social chapter and the minimum wage. What did the company do? It doubled the production line in Scarborough instead, thus guaranteeing the jobs of my constituents. How does he answer that?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not need to answer it because it is patently obvious that companies which locate in France—companies have moved from Scotland to France as well as from France to Britain—have seen the value in France, Germany and Italy, as they do in the Pacific rim, of investment in long-term skills. If the answer to the question of whether we should invest in a knowledge-based, long-term skills economy of the 21st century is a Conservative Member saying that the Government's solution is to make our wages as low as possible in order to attract people to re-locate in Scarborough, the division between the two parties is clear.
The division lies between a vision of Britain at the cutting edge of the world economy being able to compete with the Pacific rim countries, and a country that is determined to be on the fringe of Europe—a kind of offshore, floating low-wage zone in which Ministers do not seem to have grasped the fact that the biggest change in the past decade has been a drop in the demand for unskilled labour and an increase in the demand for those who could add value through their skills in a high-tech, information and communications era.
Information and communications technology, and not the ability to fill tubs with mince, has to he the way forward for this country. Low wages will not get Britain out of economic recession. Investment in skills will put us ahead of the Germans, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese and the Singaporeans.
One need only ask the Deputy Prime Minister that. He flew to Singapore to find out how they do it, but the Leader of the Opposition had already been. One need only ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since last year, over the head of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he started to undertake a skills audit. One need only talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who

made it absolutely clear on the Radio 4 programme "UKplc" at the end of 1995 that there had been years and years of under-investment in skills for the future of this country.
I suggest that Conservative Members listen to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer before yah-booing such future needs and skilling. Why has the Deputy Prime Minister undertaken a skills audit? Why is there universal acceptance that there is a major problem in the skills available in this country? Why did the survey, "Skill Needs in Britain", published in December, acknowledge that there had been a jump of 75 per cent. since 1994 in the number of companies in this country that perceive a skills gap?
That is not my perception or that of the Labour party. It is the perception of industry across the country. Furthermore, 43 per cent. perceived a shortfall in technology skills and 30 per cent. perceived a shortfall in basic manufacturing skills. We know that that is correct because the CBI has published a report, backed up by the Trades Union Congress, on the need to invest in a different sort of economy for a different millennium. The divide between the parties lies in the recognition of that need.
The report sneaked out by the Government in December, called "Lifelong Learning"—we obtained a copy and published it a fortnight before the Government released it—had only one thing going for it: it at least acknowledged that the Government were falling short of their own targets. Let me spell out some of the targets that have not been met. A total of 55 per cent. of our 17-year-olds stay on in full-time education. In France the figure is 87 per cent. and in Germany it is 93 per cent.

Mr. David Shaw: They have higher unemployment.

Mr. Blunkett: So I presume that the higher the unemployment figure, the more people stay on in education. If that were true, at the height of the Conservative-engineered recession in the early 1990s, our nation would have had some of the best figures for those staying on. The number of those staying on at 16 fell last year. I assume that there is a corollary and that because the Government have made up work make schemes and are now prepared to cut them, we will see an increase next year in the number of young people staying on in full-time education.

Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will because I would love to be enlightened on this intellectually robust point.

Mr. Shaw: When one compares France with the United Kingdom, surely one of the key points is that a young person in France stays unemployed for 22 months whereas, on average, a young person in the United Kingdom is likely to get a job after nine months. Is not one reason why the French young are so desperate to stay on in any form of education possible the fact that the minimum wage has prevented them from having opportunities for employment?

Mr. Blunkett: Intellectually, this would be a useful argument if it were not for the fact that in America, which


is used as the exemplar of right-wing market economics, there has been a minimum wage and it has not affected the number of young people obtaining jobs.

Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, because the hon. Gentleman's greatest contribution in the debate about France and Britain was to suggest that the harbour in Dover should be given away to the French. I suppose if proximity to France had enlightened the hon. Gentleman, he would have made a better contribution today.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has tunnel vision.

Mr. Blunkett: I like that joke about me having tunnel vision. That was very amusing and I will set my dog on the hon. Gentleman.
What about the targets that the Government set themselves? What about the 80 per cent. of young people who are to gain intermediate skills such as the GNVQ intermediate or five GCSEs at grades A to C by 1997? When it became clear that the Government were nowhere near that, the goalposts were changed and the target was set for the year 2000. It was also slightly adjusted and was made 85 per cent. for 19-year-olds. How are we doing at reaching that target? So far, we have managed to get two thirds of the way.
We have seen a similar shortfall in the number of adults receiving advanced qualifications below degree level such as the GNVQ advanced, BTEC national or A-levels. Britain has a figure of just over 40 per cent., whereas the Japanese attained the targets set by Britain 10 years ago. The Germans have exceeded the target and the French have a target of 80 per cent. by the year 2000, not 60 per cent., which is what we have set ourselves.
It is a sorry picture. There are targets that cannot be met and the Government are cutting back at the very time when those targets need to be attained. We have seen cuts in not only the training budget but in further and higher education. Fancy cutting two thirds of the capital budget over the next three years for the further education sector at the very time when we should be encouraging more young people to go into full-time education. Are we doing that? A few moments ago Conservative Members committed themselves to encouraging young people not to go into full-time education but to get the cheapest job possible on the ground that the more people who go into full-time education, the more desperate they must be. What a pathetic state we have reached.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Gentleman referred to cuts. Will he join me in condemning the 25 per cent. cut-imposed on the action for community employment scheme in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is unmanageable and irresponsible to expect those cuts to be made by 31 March this year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would serve the community and the long-term unemployed better by increasing funding for those community projects and by properly supervising the 240 of them across Northern Ireland, to ensure that the skill level of the long-term unemployed is raised and that the necessary community services provided for the needy can be maintained?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The link between providing real experience, community skills and training is critical. As I shall show, the Government

have disregarded the idea that placing people in work and on community experience is good for them because it is too expensive. Accelerating closure demoralises those at the sharp end—those on the schemes—and undermines the confidence of providers who believe that they can be let down by the Government abandoning them at any moment.
The OECD recently put us at 18th out of 25 in the skills attained by our people as a whole. The World Competitive Forum put us 24th in terms of people skills and 35th in educational attainment. Again, Conservative Members are having a little chuckle. I do not think that there is much to laugh at.

Mr. Ian McCartney: We are not talking about everybody's children.

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, as my hon. Friend reminds me, some people's children are doing all right because they can be supported and encouraged. We are talking all the time about helping those who are least able to help themselves. That is what one-nation Britain is all about. It is not just about looking after an elite and patting on the back those who happen to have had private education or who can succeed because they are funded through higher education. It is about ensuring that we look after those with no prospects such as the 700,000 to whom I referred earlier, the 280,000 under-25s who have been out of work for over six months, the 443,000 adults who have been out of work for over two years and the 750,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year. Those are the issues that we should be debating. Tonight's debate is important not just because it is about the future of Britain's economy, crucial though that is, but because it is about the well-being of individuals. If we are to have social cohesion as well as economic prosperity, we need to provide opportunities for every young person so that they are not on the streets or lying in bed but in work, doing work.
There are some important schemes. We agree with the modern apprenticeships and the accelerated apprenticeships. The programme to encourage firms to become investors in people is crucial, but instead of 8 per cent. we should aim for 80 per cent. of firms to become involved in that. We should encourage partnerships and develop the best of business partnerships from school through to work with local authorities. That has been done in Leeds by Leeds city council, the Benefits Agency and the training and enterprise council. We need positive moves to use the resources at our disposal to encourage and support people in their endeavour to find work. We are not talking about punishment or the jobseeker's allowance, which will be debated in the House tomorrow, or about threatening people or introducing a project work scheme that is deliberately and calculatedly designed to provide a shoddy and unacceptable alternative.
On 10 March last year the community action programme was supposed to be the great programme for the future. On that day, the Secretary of State's predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Employment, said—this was one of his most positive moves—
Over the next three years we are planning to extend the successful community action programme, which provides work experience and a route back to jobs for long-term unemployed people. It was due to end next year but we shall now provide 40,000 opportunities a year for the next three years.


That lasted only eight months. The Budget then overtook it and the Government changed their mind and abandoned the scheme. We must examine why that happened. In putting forward the project work scheme, the Government claimed that it would represent value for money and be a new idea. They said that the pilot schemes would provide a better alternative than schemes previously in place, and that the project work scheme would be a boon for those who had been out of work. It does not look that way when we examine the briefings given to Ministers.
One briefing note was entitled:
Briefing for Ministers on the Budget. Requiring activity pilots: lines to take.
The advice given on the project work scheme was:
This approach is new and will not he cheap. We do not throw money away on programmes that do not work.
I shall examine that advice in terms of the £98 million that was spent in 1994–95 on the community action programme, and compare it with the advice in the same briefing note to Ministers, which describes the programme as "community action closure". Under the heading,
Questions that Ministers might be asked",
it says:
Why are you closing community action when it has been such a success?
and advises that the Minister answer:
You will be aware that all Government Departments' budgets have been under very close scrutiny this year. It was quite clear that money would not be available for community action to continue at current levels. It was generally accepted that community action could not remain viable as a national programme if places were cut further, and closure, leading to the provision of its cheaper alternative, was seen as the preferred option.
That note reveals that finding a cheaper alternative was the most important priority and that the prime decision to cut community action was being taken not because the programme was not working—the Government proclaimed that it was and said last March that they would expand it—but as a straight budgetary cut.
The next question in the briefing is even more revealing:
I know that the public position is that recruitment stops after 29 December but should we really continue with referrals up until then?
The crucial answer is:
Yes. Community action has been a popular and effective programme, and it is important that it is run down and closed in an orderly way. Money is available for this run down and it is important that we spend this on continuing to help as many people as possible in the interim.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his flow. Is he directly quoting or paraphrasing? If he is directly quoting the advice of Government officials to help Ministers answer questions that may be asked, the line that they take is familiar to those of us who have been Ministers.

Mr. Blunkett: They are direct quotations from a document that briefs Ministers, and they show clearly the thinking behind what was going on. The advice was not terribly wise, but nevertheless it was given to Ministers, which is why the Government are gradually grinding to a

standstill after 17 years. I shall not quote the rest of the document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I shall quote just one more question and answer. The question is whether work of value to the community would now be carried out, and the wonderful answer is:
Community action was always primarily about helping people to find jobs
wait for this
not creating useful work opportunities for the sake of it.
No wonder I was intervened on.
An article in a Sunday newspaper on 7 January gave the game away on how the Government regard those schemes. It quoted the Minister as dismissing placing people in community programmes as being some kind of alternative to the makeweight that those pilot schemes are all about.
We are discussing a programme of cutbacks in training, the abandonment of community action programmes and a belief that a cheap alternative to programmes that have worked must be put in place. The Government have introduced change after change, which has disrupted not only the poor devils trying to get work or return to work but those desperate to provide that work. It has disrupted those in the community who set up and worked on those schemes. It undermines training and enterprise councils' programmes and programmes for young people as well as old.
What sort of Government proclaim in the Budget that they care about the long-term unemployed and then cut the training for work programme by 15 per cent., after an 18 per cent. cut in the previous year's estimated budget—£574 million cut to £488 million? What sort of Government pare back youth training, reducing the unit cost from £32 last year to £28 this year, having reduced it from an average unit cost of £50 four years ago? It is mean, petty and short-sighted—short-termism of the worst order.
No wonder Conservative Members defend Burger King. That is exactly what their Government are like. They seek the lowest possible pay with the least possible investment in the future. They will be swept aside because we talk of giving everyone a stake in society.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the fall in unemployment and rise in employment that have enabled more people to share in the benefits of economic growth; supports the Government's determination to give unemployed people the help they need to find work; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to raise standards of education and training and enhance the nation's competitiveness.".
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for giving me so early in the new year a chance not only to set out for the House the Government's achievements in constructive and effective action to help unemployed people back to work but, more importantly, to explain to him and his hon. Friends a few facts of life. Disappointingly, all that we heard from him was the usual catalogue of woes, the usual implicit demands for more money, regardless of circumstances, and the usual refusal to face up to the consequences for


employment of his policies to embrace the social chapter and a national minimum wage. As usual, he refused to recognise the fact that, next year, investment in education will be £878 million and we shall provide an extra £30 million for the careers service. Our training strategy, as laid out in the White Papers on competitiveness, is backed with £300 million of new money for real investment and is getting results.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman also refuses to accept simple facts, such as the fact that this country has only 5.7 per cent. of its work force on short-term contracts, whereas France and Germany have double that number and Spain has more than 30 per cent. It is also sad that he spent half an hour talking Britain down. He spoke of world economic forums. The so-called findings of the World Competitive Forum, whoever that is, are at odds with recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports.
The OECD puts Britain second only to Denmark among European Union countries; on graduation rates, in the top five; and on spending per student, the highest in the European Union. During 1995, the OECD praised the increased number of young people obtaining good qualifications, the upgrading of labour force skills levels, the rapid take-up of general national vocational qualifications, the introduction of modern apprenticeships, the success of training and enterprise councils and the substantial rise in participation rates in education and training post-16 over the past decade. Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mention any of that. No wonder he asked for enlightenment. He thought that he had found it in a stolen document.

Mrs. Prentice: The Secretary of State mentioned both the careers service and the training and enterprise councils. The young people of south London first lost South Thames training and enterprise council because of the debacle there and are now waiting for a careers service to be established on 1 April. Grand Metropolitan has received a spurious title of preferred bidder status from the Secretary of State, despite a much better, well-thought-out bid by local authorities. Exactly what guidance will she give young people in south London about where they should go post-16?

Mrs. Shephard: I am confident that the well-resourced education and further education sectors in south London will be able to provide for the needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). I am also confident that there will be a good, effective careers service in place.
Governments cannot create jobs; businesses do. What Governments can do is to create the conditions for healthy economic growth and get rid of unnecessary legislative burdens that would deter employers from recruiting additional people as sales and output rise.
Only Opposition Members would launch a debate on employment that ignores the economic facts of life. Only they could ignore the unmistakable successes of the past three years: steadily falling unemployment; growth in jobs; a healthy flow of inward investment; and the lowest level of industrial disputes since records began. That, of course, is because they do not like to hear about success.
When the economy began to recover from recession in 1992, what did we hear from the Opposition? We heard that Europe, and Britain with it, faced a period of growth in joblessness. For Europe as a whole, that prediction has proved uncomfortably close to the truth, but for Britain it has proved wrong. Of course, we heard from Opposition Members that Britain, like the rest of Europe, faced permanently high unemployment. What did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) warn us in his best sepulchral tones? He said:
both unemployment and inflation are likely to rise".—[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 94.]
He was wrong again on both counts.
There are now nearly 750,000 fewer people out of work and unemployment has fallen for 27 months in a row—it was down another 20,000 last month alone.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Before the right hon. Lady seeks to take credit for the fall in unemployment, such as it has been, is she aware that the cause of that fall has nothing to do with the Government's employment or training programmes and everything to do with their failure to achieve the linchpin of their economic policy, which was to maintain our position in the exchange rate mechanism at a highly overvalued rate? If the Government had succeeded, none of what she now claims would have occurred. Does she accept that?

Mrs. Shephard: I expect that the hon. Gentleman would like to say something about his party's policy ambiguities in respect of the single currency. No doubt he will come to that when he winds up.

Mr. Meacher: Answer the question.

Mrs. Shephard: I am about to do so. It is the Government's labour market reforms and sound economic policies that have caused unemployment to fall faster and further than in other European Union countries. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) does not want to take my word for that, as he patently does not, let him take that of the OECD.
Of course the recession years hit Britain; they hit everyone. Unemployment, at around 8 per cent., is still too high, but unemployment in Britain is lower than in Germany, where it is 8.5 per cent.; well below that of France and Italy, where more than 11 per cent. are out of work; and spectacularly lower than in Spain, Europe's last socialist stronghold, where the social chapter and statutory national minimum wage of the kind proposed by the Labour party have created unemployment of 22 per cent. That is what I think is meant by a stakeholder society: regulation piled on regulation; industry held back by the trade unions; bureaucrats controlling every aspect of people's lives; and one in five people out of work, as in socialist Spain—a stake right through the heart of British enterprise and opportunity.
The reforms of the past 16 years have transformed Britain's labour market. Job growth between 1979 and 1989 was among the fastest in Europe—higher than in France, Italy or Germany. Three times as many new jobs were created in those 10 years as in the previous 10 years. Already, since 1992, more than 500,000 more jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by nearly


750,000. Every region of Britain and section of society is benefiting. We have fewer men out of work, fewer women out of work, and fewer long-term unemployed.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: It is interesting to hear the Minister recount those figures about how good everything is. Why is it that in Bradford, one third of the population is on some form of income benefit? The Government are doing nothing to solve the problem of long-term unemployment.

Mrs. Shephard: As I have just said, every region of Britain, including the north, has benefited from the fall in unemployment. The north of England and Northern Ireland have the highest unemployment, but it is still lower than average unemployment in the European Union as a whole.
In the 1970s—the last time that the stakeholders ran Britain—the north-south divide was a reality. There is now a smaller gap between the regions with the best employment and those with the worst unemployment in Britain than in any other European Union country. The north-south divide was a reality in the 1970s. Unemployment in Scotland, Wales and northern England was well above that of more prosperous regions. Now unemployment in Wales is at the Great Britain average and in Scotland it is below average.
It would be interesting for Opposition Members to compare our regions with those of our European partners: Calais, for example, has unemployment of 16 per cent.; in Mecklenburg, it is over 18 per cent.; in southern Spain, one person in three is unemployed.
It is against that background, that change in the labour market, that good news—which I can see that Labour Members are delighted to hear—and that fall in unemployment, that we should set our changed priorities in help for unemployed people.
Priorities have to change with changing times, but the fundamental aim remains the same: to offer individual people the help that they need to get back to work as quickly as possible. It is the task of a responsible Government to give unemployed people that help. As the economic background changes, so the programmes must change to give people the help that they need.
Today's labour market is buoyant. In November alone, in just one month, nearly 250,000 new vacancies were notified to jobcentres—the highest figure in any single month since records began. More than 7 million jobs become vacant every year. A quarter of people who become unemployed leave unemployment within a month, half within three months and about two thirds within six months. The Employment Service placed a record 2 million people into jobs in the past year. As jobs are more available, it makes sense to tilt the balance of our programmes increasingly towards helping people with job search.
The number of opportunities for unemployed people will remain the same—1.5 million—even though there are fewer people out of work. Community action is to end because help needs to be focused more precisely and its place is to be taken by around 240,000 places, double the current number, on 1-2-1 to provide intensive help and counselling to unemployed people. There will be more help with job search. Under the jobseeker's allowance,

every unemployed person will have a jobseeker's agreement that will set out the steps needed to help get them back to work.

Mr. Rowlands: I have been following the right hon. Lady's speech closely. Will she confirm that the document from which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) quoted was not drafted by a Department, but offered the considered view of officials and Ministers about the community action programme?

Mrs. Shephard: I make it a practice never to comment on stolen documents, which I have said before in the House.
The hon. Member for Brightside rightly mentioned that people with special needs require special help. I shall outline that help in a moment. The Employment Service will spend more time with jobseekers, reviewing their progress and giving help and advice.
In April 1996, we shall introduce new project work pilots for 6,000 people in two areas. In the pilot areas, people who have been unemployed for more than two years will be given 13 weeks of the most appropriate help that the Employment Service can offer, which will be followed by 13 weeks of work experience for those who remain unemployed. The aim is to concentrate work experience on those who most need it.
Around 21,800 severely disabled people will be helped in supported employment in 1995–96, at a cost of around £153 million.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the pilots operate in travel-to-work areas or in constituencies?

Mrs. Shephard: That has been announced; the two areas are Medway and Hull. I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the details if he wishes, but I believe that his colleagues have the information already.
Placing, assessment and counselling teams, PACTS, will provide an integrated, flexible and local specialist service for more severely disabled people, and will include access to supported employment. PACTS will give advice and practical help to employers to assist, recruit, train and retain disabled people.
Training and re-skilling are also a key part of the strategy for improved economic performance—I think that we are all agreed on that at least. To compete successfully in world markets, clearly the United Kingdom and its companies must have a highly skilled, flexible and adaptable work force. We are committed to creating the conditions that will help to achieve that goal, which lies at the heart of the agenda for the new merged Department for Education and Employment. The merger has been welcomed by almost everyone, including some of the stakeholders—though not by the Labour party—so that we can bring together the workplace and the classroom to make what is done in schools, colleges and universities relevant to the workplace.
We have national targets for education and training, which I certainly accept are ambitious and challenging. They are aimed at fitting Britain's economy and people for the 21st century. The two competitiveness White Papers lay out the strategy for achieving those targets, and we have backed it with £300 million.
Britain, uniquely, has a national network of training and enterprise councils, which are committed to achieving the targets. The TECs are creating better local training provision, helping local people and helping to regenerate local economies.
National vocational qualifications are increasingly being used, and more than 80 per cent. of the working population is covered by them. I had the pleasure of awarding the millionth just before Christmas. More young people are learning about the world of work through work experience, and we are supporting arrangements to make it available to pupils in their last year of compulsory schooling.
People are increasingly taking up 'or continuing education and training, and 84 per cent. of the work force has a qualification. TEC expenditure, contrary to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brightside, is set to rise, up 5 per cent., to £1.4 billion, above the expected expenditure in this financial year. The budget for youth programmes will rise by more than £100 million against forecast expenditure next year.
Modern apprenticeships are a serious and major reform of our training system. More than 50 sectors now have training frameworks, and recruitment has started in all English TEC areas. The training for work budget is being scaled down precisely because there has been the fall in unemployment that I have described, but the provision for people with special needs will be retained at existing levels.
Training for work remains a major programme, and quality will be improved to increase the emphasis on improved job outcomes.

Mr. Blunkett: Can the right hon. Lady tell me why the budget of the access to work project has been frozen? Why are the Government proposing to reduce drastically availability of that key bridge between training and equipping for work and the opportunity for disabled people to get work?

Mrs. Shephard: The budget of the access to work programme has already been exceeded during this year by some £6 million, so we are having to put a ceiling on expenditure this year. Meanwhile, we are consulting on the way forward for next year.
Unemployed people are not a single lump; they are individuals—people of all ages, all backgrounds and with very different hopes and aspirations. No single programme is right for them all—some need re-skilling; some need work experience; and others need help with job search. Individuals differ, and their needs differ, which is why we have a mix of programmes and the flexibility to adapt them to suit individual needs.
We shall continue to pay particular attention to those with special needs. The Government are committed to maintain the current volume of trainees with special needs, which includes those with disabilities, on the training for work programme, despite a reduction in the size of that programme. Disabled people will remain eligible for that programme without having to satisfy the six-month unemployment criterion.
We believe in giving opportunities and rights to individual people, to real people of flesh and blood—not stakeholders. We want a society in which people are in charge of their own destinies; a society where people have rights, opportunities and choices.
Since 1979, we have given the people a real stake in society. We have handed the trade unions to their members; we have given parents the right to choose schools for their children and given people ownership of industry in a share-owning democracy. That is a society of opportunity and choice, with real participation in the choices that all of us face in everyday life.
The people welcome those opportunities, and will not accept a return to the bad old days when the stakeholders ran Britain, and ran it into the ground. They will not accept more regulation or more taxation. They will not accept more bureaucrats telling them how to run their businesses and how to run their lives.
On Sunday. the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) let the cat out of the bag—a Labour Government, he said,
cannot govern without the support of the unions".
I agree. No Labour Government have ever governed without the support of the trade unions because no Labour Government can afford to ignore their paymasters. Unlike the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the hon. Member for Brent, East at least had the honesty to admit that, and to admit it publicly.
But I have news for Opposition Members: now that the truth is out, the people can make a real decision about what is on offer. In the 1970s—the days of the stakeholder society—Government, big business and the trade union barons took decisions on people's behalf. Of course, we are told that under new Labour there will he no return to beer and sandwiches in smoke-filled rooms. Of course not, because under new Labour it would be deals over smoked salmon and dry white wine in a smoke-free zone. It is a case of new packaging and old ideas.
People will not accept a Britain where public services are provided on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with only the rich able to choose for themselves which school is right for their child. People want a society in which they as individuals have a stake. For most people, the biggest stake they have in society is their job. Jobs give people not just income, but self-confidence and self-respect. That is why the priority must be to create more jobs. That is why policies that destroy jobs—the social chapter and the national minimum wage—the policies to which the Opposition are signed up, are such a cruel fraud.
That is why the Government will continue to give priority to creating an economy that continues to deliver the jobs that people want.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to the phrase "line to take" that appeared in a document. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State has made a speech using the line to take on stakeholders issued by Conservative central office. I think that what we have heard will become a familiar refrain. I do not know in which society or world the right hon. Lady is living, but she has not described the world or community that I represent.
I shall tell the right hon. Lady a fact of life over the past 15 years: the Government believe that the frontiers of the state should be pushed back, but the state has never been more intrusive in people's lives. More people than ever before in post-war Britain are dependent on the state


because of the cumulative effect of Government policy. The state intrudes into people's lives because they have had to become more dependent on it because of rising unemployment and growing dependency on benefits. The Secretary of State may talk about an enterprising society and choice, but as a result of Government policy an increasing number of my constituents have been forced into a new dependency culture that they do not like and did not want.
I should have hoped that, if nothing else, there could be a basic consensus on the subject of training. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that training and skills will be vital to competitiveness. In a world of global trade and transfer of production, one factor that national Governments can still influence, alter and support is skills training. As that issue is crucial, we should analyse what the Government have or have not done about it.
I have been a strong supporter for a considerable time of training programmes in my constituency produced by Ministers and a succession of Secretaries of State for Wales. I promoted and supported modern manufacturing schemes introduced by successive Secretaries of State including the right hon. Lady's immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The right hon. Gentleman came and supported the sort of schemes that we have been backing in Merthyr.
Over the past 15 or 20 years, there has been a bewildering series of changes in the programmes, which have been set up and then closed. We do not believe in the pick-and-mix approach described by the Secretary of State. The changes have often been driven by Budget changes from one year to the next. Some years a lot of money has been thrown at training programmes, and in other years programmes have been cut, almost overnight. Those changes have created in many people, particularly young people, resentment towards training—they feel alienated. Many people, particularly young people, now take a cynical approach towards the schemes and no longer believe in training. That development, which has been caused partly by the chops and changes made to training programmes over the years, is worrying and must be overcome.
One in five school leavers in Mid Glamorgan cannot be accounted for: they are not involved in training or further education; they do not collect the dole and they do not claim benefit. They have simply disappeared from the system. One in five school leavers in Mid Glamorgan no longer have any connection with the system: they are not scrounging or claiming benefits and they are not following training programmes. I suspect that that large and worrying core of school leavers will provide the basis for future problems and concerns in our society.
That worrying core of school leavers has been created partly because they no longer believe that community and Government training programmes will meet their needs, and who can blame them? Surely the Secretary of State knows that community action provided one of the bridges between welfare and work. I should have thought that there would be a consensus on the need to build bridges and make the connection between welfare and work. But the community action programme, which was one of those bridges, was blown up overnight. Despite the references

in the leaked document to the quality, usefulness and popularity of some of the community action programmes, that bridge will now he blown up.
The community action programme is to he blown up without any assessment of the consequences. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales—the Welsh Office has responsibility for training in Wales—to tell me about the community action programmes. I received a written answer to my question stating that he did not know. The Welsh Office does not know about the programmes that it has suddenly decided to close—it does not have a list or any idea of the programmes' character. In a written answer the Welsh Office said that the information was not available centrally. Presumably, the Secretary of State sat at the Cabinet table and nodded through the closure of the community action programmes without any knowledge or detailed understanding of them.
Many of the people who have been involved in the community action programmes over the years have felt that they were not always good, did not offer much training and were, in some cases, half-baked, but they felt that the programmes provided a necessary link to work. The people involved in the community action programme are those least likely to obtain employment. The Government used falling unemployment as their basic excuse for closing the programme.
I am worried that those involved in the programme will not obtain employment. They arc people with special needs and less ability and aptitude than others; such people require the community action programme as they will not automatically gain maximum benefit from the improvement in local employment prospects. They are the victims and are less likely than others to obtain jobs. The right hon. Lady and the Government have closed one of the programmes that provided a bridge between welfare and work.
Has the Secretary of State followed what has happened to the training for work changes that have been implemented and the introduction of the outcome-related schemes? Have the right hon. Lady or Ministers tried to find out what is happening in relation to training for work? It has increasingly turned out to be nothing more than an employment subsidy. I am not necessarily against employment subsidies, but it seems strange for the Government to propose them. Training programmes have shrunk and almost disappeared, and most training providers are paid to move people into employment as quickly as possible, irrespective of the quality or character of the job and irrespective of the potential employee's training or vocation.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will quote from the Coopers and Lybrand report on the programmes, which spelt out the point that I just made. On the Government's changes to the training for work programme, the report states:
training providers cannot actually create job opportunities but they can create training opportunities which are likely to improve a trainee's future employment potential.
That is the one goal that the training for work programme is not achieving—it is not training a trainee so that he or she has the potential for employment. In most cases, it moves people into work as quickly as possible, irrespective of their skills or training. The programme might sound like a good idea—no one is against it—but it is not a training programme. It is an employment


subsidy. There may he a case for employment subsidies, but the programme is not a training scheme.
How can we square that approach with the desire to lift skills and achieve targets for NVQ3 and NVQ4? The Secretary of State might not know about it and there is no Welsh Office Minister present, but only this week a new report on the 1994 Welsh training and education survey was published. It sets up targets for NVQ3 and NVQ4 to be achieved by the year 2000. The aim is that 60 per cent. of people in Wales should achieve NVQ3 by the end of the century. The figures show that at present only 39 per cent. are achieving that goal. How does the right hon. Lady think that the targets will be achieved when the training for work programme and many other skills and training programmes are diminishing?
In the county of Mid Glamorgan, a part of which I represent, only 42 per cent. of men and 29 per cent. of women have the equivalent of NVQ3 qualifications. We are supposed to reach 60 per cent. by the year 2000. How will that target be achieved in four years? What method and approach will achieve such levels of skills in four years, enabling us to make a leap of the magnitude that the targets require?
We are supposed to achieve a target of 30 per cent. at NVQ4 by the year 2000. At the moment, Mid Glamorgan achieves only 18 per cent. How is that skills gap to be crossed? How will the leap to those standards be achieved?
My worry is that that lot, the Conservative Government, are like Soviet commissar planners. They announce targets and believe that somehow they will he achieved. If one announced Soviet production, it was reality. Similarly, it appears that if one announces training targets for the year 2000, they will happen irrespective of anything else.
I must tell the Secretary of State and her Ministers that the skills and training element of many training, training for work and other programmes is shrinking. I understand that the only target is to get people into jobs irrespective of how dead-end those jobs are and irrespective of what qualifications those people obtain in the process, what needs are met and what training is associated with that.
How will those targets be reached by the year 2000? They are firm, strong, powerful commitments made by the Government. I do not believe that in many cases the programmes that they offer and deliver in the communities that I represent will achieve that type of target. We have a common aim, a common purpose, a consensus in those terms, but I do not believe that the methods that have been adopted, especially the fundamental changes that have occurred in training for work programmes, are likely to achieve such targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside spoke about the skills audit. We have one as a result of the Welsh training and education survey. The other thing that the survey shows is that, whereas NVQ3s and similar levels of training are achieved by 50 per cent. of employees in the public sector, only 30 per cent. of employees in the private sector achieve them. The old-fashioned public sector has somehow maintained, and tried to pay for and support, training standards.
For all the Secretary of State's passionate support for enterprise and the private sector, which we all support, according to the survey only 30 per cent. of private sector employees are achieving NVQ3s, as opposed to 50 per

cent. in the public sector. A gender gap has opened up and now a gap has opened up in relation to whether one works in the public or the private sector.
I am not being condemnatory. I am not being censorious about private companies and private enterprise. However, the right hon. Lady should know that, in the past 15 to 20 years, in the private sector, people have regarded training as a cost that must he cut, not an investment that must he made. That is the fundamental, simple, basic thing that has occurred.
The Secretary of State may not like to hear talk about stakeholders, and so on, but somehow those attitudes must change, not among employees hut among those who employ. Why is it that figures of the type revealed in the survey demonstrate the low skills in much of the private sector in Welsh economic, industrial and employment life?
I do not know which companies Conservative Members represent, but in the 1980s, with the requirement for labour flexibility, under the pressure to achieve the lower costs that were essential for economic growth, which the Secretary of State mentioned, the first thing that went was training. Training was abandoned furthest and fastest by many employers. I understand the reasons, given the struggles and the background against which they worked. They cut training almost as though it were a cost, and did not regard it as an investment.
Somehow, a combination of Government and companies must restore the fundamental principle that training is an investment, not a cost. Whether one likes it or not, companies in Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Germany—western European companies and Asian companies—believe that training is an investment, not a cost. Until, between Government and companies, we turn the United Kingdom attitude around and decide that training is an investment, not a cost, we shall not achieve the targets and the levels of training and skills that I hope that we have a common cause to achieve. I must tell the Secretary of State that, given the figures, those surveys that have been produced—at least in Welsh terms, in the communities that I represent—demonstrate that we must do something more and different from that which has been offered to us by the Secretary of State's speech.
We have transferred the burden of costs from companies to the state. It is curious that the cost of state financing of training has continually increased. Responsibilities and costs that were borne by companies in the early days have been transferred through unemployment, and through state and training and enterprise council training schemes, and so on, to the state.
It is time to give companies a major incentive and place on them a simple responsible duty to train. That is the first and fundamental change that we want, so that the Government, companies and individuals have one simple belief—that training is an investment in the present and the future, not a cost that may be cut and altered under the impact of change.
Sadly, the most recent Budget demonstrated that not just companies believe that training is a cost that must be cut and a burden; so do the Government.

Mr. Peter Luff: It is right that I should begin by asking why it is that, if the subject of the debate


is so important to the Labour party that it gives up a precious half of one its Supply days to debate it, so few Labour Back Benchers seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Five.

Mr. Luff: Two Labour Back-Bench Members.
Perhaps it is because Labour Members know that the economic position in their constituencies is so good now that their heart is not in it. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has witnessed a 19 per cent. reduction in unemployment in his constituency since the most recent general election. The other Opposition Member who I believe is trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), has witnessed a reduction of 21 per cent. in his constituency.
The Labour Front-Bench spokesman who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), has witnessed a reduction of 20 per cent. in unemployment in his constituency. I am also happy to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who will close the debate, has witnessed a reduction of 30 per cent. in his constituency. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who represents the Liberal Democrats, has witnessed a reduction of only 17 per cent., which probably says something about the wisdom of the Liberal Democrat vote. In East Antrim, I believe that the reduction in unemployment since the general election has been 27 per cent. I am glad to say that in Worcester, there has been a larger reduction than in any of those constituencies—about 32 per cent.—since the general election.

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman should recalculate his figures. One hundred and twenty of my constituents were made unemployed last week.

Mr. Luff: I am very sorry to hear that; none the less, there has been a substantial reduction in unemployment since the general election. Perhaps that is why few Opposition Members are showing their faces in the Chamber tonight.
None of us disputes the fact that training is important. It is important at two levels—for the individual and for the country. We live in a world of rapid change. I know that evidence is a little unclear on how much faster that rate of change is occurring in jobs. I am currently on my sixth job—I hope my last. I shall be only 41 next month. There is no training for the job of a Member of Parliament except rather inadequate on the job training.
I believe that the rate of change in employment is increasing for individuals. Major career changes during one's life are much more likely. If one is to remain economically active during one's life, retraining is increasingly important. If an individual is to contribute to the society of which he or she is a part, retraining is increasingly important. I strongly agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when she said that the most important stake that an individual had in society was his or her job.
I believe that there is a moral dimension to this subject—a "one nation" dimension. I very much resent the Labour party's attempts to appropriate that phrase, given what it did to create two, three or who knows how many nations during the winter of discontent.
Training is also important for the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. We all suffer if competitiveness declines. If talent is wasted, output is forgone and if output is forgone, wealth will be reduced in the public and private sectors—whether it is private consumption or public investment in hospitals and schools.
It is no wonder that training has become Labour's mantra: a substitute for any alternative economic policy. The Labour party has adopted a motherhood and apple pie approach which cannot be opposed but which, when examined carefully, is completely vacuous. Who invented training in the modern British economy? I believe that it was the Conservative party. I believe also that Labour's attitude to training is hypocritical on at least three counts: Labour's record while in office, its failure to acknowledge what we have achieved during our period in office, and its plans to increase unemployment.
Let us examine those points in turn. The first hypocrisy is Labour's record. I know that 1979 is a long time ago, but since then expenditure under this Government has increased two and a half times in real terms. There has been a huge increase in expenditure on training. Labour Members lecture us about modest cuts—which, as my right hon. Friend said, are a response to falling unemployment—but Labour's expenditure on training was scandalously low. That was one product of Labour's economic failure and incompetence.
The second hypocrisy is Labour's failure to acknowledge that we have done any good. Labour Members highlight only the problems that they allege exist. I wonder whether shadow Cabinet meetings to discuss the training budget are rather like the marvellous scene from "Monty Python's Life of Brian". Hon. Members will remember that scene when the conspirators are plotting to overthrow Roman rule. One of them asks, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" and another replies, "Well, there are the aqueducts." The first conspirator then says, "Yes, but apart from the aqueducts, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Someone else then says, "Well, there are the roads," and the reply is, "Yes, but apart from the roads and the aqueducts, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Law is then mentioned. along with the roads and the aqueducts—I am sure that hon. Members know how the litany continues.
Perhaps Labour Members sit around the shadow Cabinet table and say, "What have the Conservatives ever done for training?" Some brave soul may say, "Well, they have increased expenditure sharply," and the reply may be, "Yes, they have increased expenditure." Someone else may say, "Well, they have created 1.5 million training places," and the reply may be, "Yes, they have created 1.5 million training places and increased expenditure sharply." Someone may then suggest, "Well, they have set up the training and enterprise councils; they are quite successful." The reply may be, "Yes, they have set up the TECs, they have created 1.5 million training places and they have increased expenditure sharply. Okay, apart from that, what have the Conservatives ever done for training'!" Someone else may then say, "Well, they have introduced national vocational qualifications."
So the Conservatives have introduced NVQs, they have set up the TECs, they have created 1.5 million training places and sharply increased expenditure. Apart from that, we have also increased participation rates in higher and further education and training. So we have increased


participation rates and established NVQs, and TECs, produced 1.5 million training places and increased expenditure—Labour Members may well ask what the Conservatives have done for training.
Of course, there is a third element to Labour's hypocrisy. The Government are now able to look more critically at the training budget because we have reduced unemployment sharply. However, the Opposition's policies would increase unemployment. There are more people in work as a proportion of the population of working age than in any other major European Union country. Some 68 per cent. of those of working age are in employment compared with 66 per cent. in Germany, 60 per cent. in France and 53 per cent. in Italy. Only 8.2 per cent. of our population are unemployed, compared with 8.4 per cent. in Germany, 11.4 per cent. in France and 11.3 per cent. in Italy. Youth unemployment in this country is 17.2 per cent. Although I agree that that is too high, it compares favourably with the European average of 20.6 per cent., the French figure of 26.5 per cent. and the Spanish figure of 40.3 per cent.

Mr. Rowlands: As the hon. Gentleman is making comparisons with 1979, will he tell us the unemployment figures in 1979 and compare them with today's figures?

Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this Government's record is a damn sight better than that of any other major European Union country. That is the point: we have done extremely well compared with our competitors.
The Opposition plan to increase unemployment. I shall not labour the point, but we all know what the effects of the social chapter and the minimum wage will be. If Labour Members wished to use training to cope with the unemployment that they would create, they would have to spend massive amounts of money simply to maintain the level of training for the unemployed that we have achieved.
The trouble with the Labour party is that it cannot tell good expenditure from bad. Labour Members believe that making £1 of taxpayers' money work harder is always worse than the simpler option of taking another 10p from the taxpayer. They do not understand that we must look critically at every expenditure programme, including training, and ask whether it is delivering value for money to the taxpayer.
If unemployment is falling as a result of the Government's successful economic policies, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must take a decision: should she cut expenditure proportionately in order to protect the taxpayer fully, should she maintain expenditure and increase the per capita sum, the total real value of the budget, or should she strike some kind of compromise between the two? I generally favour the latter course, and that seems to be what the Government have done. They have compromised between protecting the taxpayer's interests and increasing the real, effective training budget.
Unemployment has been falling sharply for 27 months. The number of long-term unemployed has decreased by 12 per cent. in the past year and it is 28 per cent. lower than when the community action programme was established. Youth unemployment has decreased by 24 per cent. in three years. That is why I have no hesitation in suggesting that the motion is rank hypocrisy.

It highlights only one scheme that has been abolished and the Opposition forget entirely the new initiatives that we are taking to adjust our training programme to changing circumstances.
I refer to the 1-2-1 scheme, the new project work pilots, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted in her speech, and other very important changes which I believe will assist the unemployed, including the jobseeker's allowance. Then there are the reforms to the social security system, family credit, national insurance, housing benefit, the hack-to-work bonus and child care changes. They will help to reduce unemployment still further.
I shall conclude on a local note. The community action programme has proved valuable in my constituency; it has done a good job. However, I am prepared to support its abolition, for the reasons that I set out earlier in my speech and because of the dramatic improvement locally in the situation facing the long-term jobless. Since October 1993, total unemployment has fallen from 13,735 to 10,909 in the area covered by my training and enterprise council. It is encouraging to note that the percentage of long-term unemployed in those figures has fallen also, from 37 per cent. in October 1993 to 29.6 per cent. in October 1995. It is a smaller proportion of a smaller figure. That is why I can accept the abolition of the community action programme.
The debate gives me an opportunity to praise the work of my local training and enterprise council, Hereford and Worcester training and enterprise council. It is one of the best-performing TECs in the country and it is run excellently by Alan Curless, the chief executive. Its performance with regard to youth training has improved significantly—especially among young people with special needs at NVQ1. However, I am pleased to say that there have been similar improvements at levels 3 and 4. Hawtec expects the modern apprenticeship scheme to improve the results even further. I highlight to Labour Members the fact that the cost of delivering that success is decreasing. I add one caveat: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to the concerns of some TECs about the cash flow effect of the method of financing modern apprenticeships. I do not know whether those concerns are well founded, but this is a considerable worry to my local training and enterprise council.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I am not suggesting that Conservative Back Benchers or those on the Government Front Bench are creating unemployment deliberately; I accept that it is a sin of omission rather than commission which is due simply to their incompetence. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the devices and the programmes and schemes that the Government have introduced to mitigate unemployment have absolutely no effect in constituencies such as mine, where youth unemployment is more like 70 or 80 per cent. than 17 or 18 per cent.?

Mr. Luff: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I am sorry that I gave way to him. I did not realise that he was not in the Chamber to listen to the earlier part of the debate and I did not know from which direction the voice on the other side was coming.
I am pleased to say that the emphasis on training for work has altered locally to provide more focus on the long-term unemployed, particularly those aged between


18 and 24 years who have been unemployed for more than two years. Contrary to the pessimism expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, job outcomes locally have improved significantly as a result of training for work. We expect something like 45 per cent. of programme leavers to find work in the Hawtec area in 1995–96. It is perfectly possible for the TEC in my area to manage the reduction in the training for work budget that is already on the table, but I hope that there will be no significant reductions beyond that.
My TEC is an excellent one and it gives me great confidence in the Government's management of training issues. I am delighted that it is merging with the local chamber of commerce. The Three Counties chamber of commerce also has an honourable and fine record in providing training programmes. I understand that an extraordinary general meeting is to be held on 7 February with a view to getting a new board in place by 25 March. It will be a merged chamber. I am sure that merged TECs and chambers will do a great deal for unemployment throughout the country and that they have a great deal to offer.
I urge the House to reject the foolish motion that is before it.

Mr. Don Foster: During the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), I was depressed by many of the interventions of Conservative Members, which suggested that many of them do not believe in the importance of qualifications for members of our work force.
In one respect, I was delighted by the speech of the Secretary of State, just as, in one respect, I was delighted by the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Both of them stated clearly that they believe, along with Opposition Members, that training is crucial. The right hon. Lady drew attention to national targets for education and training. She rightly said that they are ambitious and challenging targets, but pledged herself to doing what she could to help the nation achieve them. There is unanimity among some of us in recognising that improving the skills and qualifications of our people is crucial. As the hon. Member for Worcester said, that is vital for the future competitiveness of the United Kingdom.
Unfortunately, Conservative Members started to giggle when reference was made to various league tables. In some instances the Government like league tables, but when the United Kingdom is not doing well in them, they do not favour them so much. The Secretary of State, like the hon. Member for Brightside and me, recently attended the North of England education conference, which was addressed by Sir Geoffrey Holland. Sir Geoffrey drew attention to league tables that have not been mentioned so far this evening. For example, he observed that 64 per cent. of our work force has no vocational qualifications, whereas in Germany the figure is 26 per cent. In Switzerland, it is only 23 per cent.
Sir Geoffrey referred to other league tables that set out the proportion of the work force that holds intermediate-level qualifications. In France, it is 40 per cent.; in Germany, 63 per cent.; in the Netherlands,

57 per cent.; and in Switzerland, 66 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it is only 25 per cent. That is real cause for concern.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise that skilled employees lead to increased productivity. That in turn shows through in increased competitiveness. In improving skills, we shall he creating jobs, reducing the level of unemployment, increasing the country's economic prosperity and increasing the well-being of all our citizens.
The evidence of a connection between skills and competitiveness is well established. Sir Geoffrey Holland gave the example of employees engaged in woodworking in Germany. On the shop floor, 90 per cent. of those people have a craft-related qualification. In Britain, only 10 per cent. are so qualified. Output per employee in Germany is about two and a half times higher than that in Britain. There is the connection. The sadness is that we are significantly falling behind our European competitors in ensuring that members of work forces have job-related qualifications.
Another sadness is that it is not a new problem. Indeed, 101 years ago, a report was produced by the Royal Commission on secondary education. I shall quote one of its passages. I apologise for the language, which is not entirely politically correct. The passage reads:
The educational opportunities offered to boys and girls who do not proceed to the universities, but leave school at 16, are still far behind the requirements of our time. The disadvantages from which young Englishmen suffer in industry and commerce owing to the superior preparation of their competitors in several countries of Continental Europe are real.
Sadly, that is still true.
The United Kingdom is failing to deal effectively with a skills deficit when we compare ourselves with our competitors. At the same time, we know that the number of low-skill manual jobs is sharply to decline. We shall not succeed as a low-wage, low-skill economy. It is sad that, in this European Year of Lifelong Learning, we arc debating the way in which the Government have made cuts in employment and training programmes that are crucial to increase the skills of our work force and to ensure that we meet the targets that the Secretary of State rightly says are vital.
It is ludicrous that about £25 billion a year is being wasted in benefits paid and taxes forgone because of the high level of unemployment. About £9 billion is still attributable to long-term unemployment. Something desperately needs to be done. We must not make cuts in the mechanisms that could reverse the situation.
The hon. Member for Worcester was right to say that, over a number of months, there has been a considerable fall in unemployment levels, including long-term unemployment. Although I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is able to comment on tomorrow's figures, I had better not do so. The reduction in unemployment levels is clearly welcome, but the number of long-term unemployed as a percentage of all those unemployed is still rising. There are still about 800,000 who have been out of work for more than 12 months. About 1.3 million have been out of work for more than six months. Short-term unemployment is the source of long-term joblessness. It is important that we provide the short-term, as well as the long-term, unemployed with opportunities to gain the skills that will be crucial if we are to create the competitive climate and economy that we need to see.
My party has made it clear that it believes that training and education are critical. Increased investment in training and education is also critical if the United Kingdom is to succeed in an increasingly global market. We need to unlock the potential of all our people, including the nearly 2.25 million who are unemployed.
It is sad that the Government's response to the challenge, as the motion and the debate have highlighted, has been to close the community action programme and to reduce expenditure on employment and training programmes by 4 per cent. We are seeing also a cut of about £200 million in the support offered to the training and enterprise councils.
Those Government decisions show a number of key points, first, that the Government are simply interested in short-term measures for tackling long-term unemployment. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out earlier, there have been constant changes in the programmes—short-term measures brought on stream and then scrapped and another gimmick introduced to give the pretence that the Government are taking real action. Secondly, they show that, after 17 years in office, the Government have found it impossible to design and implement a high-quality, high-investment skills programme for the unemployed that can contribute to the achievement of the national targets for education and training.
Reference has been made to the cuts in the training for work programme—a cut of 16 per cent. of planned expenditure. That shows that the Government expect training and enterprise councils to do more and more with less and less. The hon. Member for Worcester said that the cut in the training for work programme was in response to a reduction in the number of the long-term unemployed; but that is not the only thing that is happening. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney pointed out, the funding mechanism for training for work is altering to the output-related funding method, with the various problems that that will introduce, and that he so adequately described. There will also be a change in the basis of the planned cost per start under training for work, which is to reduce from £2,549 in 1995–96 to £2,477 in 1996–97. That, of course, is in cash terms. The real terms cut is greater than that implies
We all know that there have been problems with training for work. We recognise that only some 30 per cent. of participants have achieved a national vocational qualification, and that slightly more have gained a work placement subsequently. Improvements need to be made to the programme. One cannot bring about improvements if one is reducing not only the funding for the programme overall but the amount of money that will be available per person on the programme itself. That suggests that we will not, through the programme, he able to add the contribution that is necessary to achieve the targets. It is worth reflecting on what the director of strategy and policy at the TEC National Council said:
The News about TfW is not good…It will be particularly difficult to support higher level skills training.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made the point eloquently. Training for work, underfunded as it will now he, will gradually move away from being a training programme that helps people acquire the skills and qualifications to one that gives people somewhere to go and spend their time, supported by the Government.
Another thing that is worrying is the way in which the Government have cut, prematurely, the community action programme. The hon. Member for Brightsidc referred to that. That is a particular blow to the long-term unemployed and to the voluntary sector, which has been involved in administering many of the schemes. Those schemes have been able to help some of our most disadvantaged citizens. Many of the voluntary organisations that have supplied places, particularly for disadvantaged adults, through the community action programme, may well, I fear, withdraw from involvement in any subsequent training programme activities. That would be a significant loss to our training endeavour. Many of the long-term unemployed, many of whom have benefited from community action, will now he largely excluded from training and enterprise council training programmes.
The Government have argued that the community action programme is no longer needed, hut, if that is true. they must explain how they will support the 40,500 people benefiting under that scheme. We shall no doubt hear from the Minister, as we heard from the Secretary of State earlier, that a number of new projects have been put in place, but together they do not provide the support for that number of people.
Too much of Britain's talent has been wasted and too many opportunities have been lost. The Government's decisions on training and employment programmes mean that that situation will continue. We should be boosting training for work. We must stop the constant stop-go policy of a new gimmick here and a new gimmick there. We need some security that, once introduced, training programmes will be given an opportunity to develop and improve, so that we can get better outputs from those programmes. We must also look at a number of other issues that have not been touched on tonight.
One of the things that the Government have done—I give them credit for this—and also the TECs, which have been promoting it, is to introduce the investors in people programme. That was a welcome initiative. When it was introduced, I was sceptical about whether it would work and whether companies would be interested in it. I was proved wrong. Companies are increasingly aware of the value of training their existing work force. Investors in people has provided the boost for many of them to do that.
As other hon. Members have said, we need to encourage more people to train. One of the ways in which we could do that would be to consider introducing a 2 per cent. remissible training tax. If a company did not spend up to 2 per cent. of its payroll, it would be taxed on the difference. If it were spending up to 2 per cent. of its payroll on training, it would avoid the tax. That would provide the stick to go alongside the carrot that is provided by investors in people, and ensure that companies that have not yet recognised the benefit of providing increased training for their existing employees might well do so. We need to find other imaginative ways of providing support to the long-term as well as the short-term unemployed. We would not, however, cut back on the programmes that already exist.
It is clear that there is a degree of unanimity in the Chamber about the importance of training and about increasing the skill levels of our work force and providing support to the unemployed. By making cuts in the training programme, the Government will undermine the possibility of increasing the support that we offer, and


will undermine the ability of the unemployed to gain the high-skill jobs that they need for their own benefit and which the country needs them to have for the economic prosperity of the nation.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in this important debate instigated by the Opposition, but I am a little surprised that only three of their Back-Bench Members are present for it.

Mr. Meacher: Only three Conservative Members are present.

Mrs. Peacock: It is the Opposition's debate.
I have always supported training and education from whomever and wherever it came. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were the job opportunities and community programmes. They were mostly then, as perhaps now, organised by the voluntary sector, usually councils for voluntary service. What a difference that made to setting young people, in particular, on the path to a job. Many more opportunities are now available to help people back into work.
I was intrigued by the Leader of the Opposition's reference to stakeholders. I wonder whether he travelled through Romania on his way back from Singapore, visiting Dracula's castle at Bran. I believe that he is the stakeholder whom most people know best. I am not sure that it has much relevance to our modern-day society.
Special help is available for the unemployed, in particular for those unemployed for longer than six months. There are job clubs, training for work, job interview guarantee schemes and work trials. They are all designed to help unemployed people with different needs. It is well recognised that there cannot be a universal programme for everyone seeking work.
Work trials enable unemployed people to try out a job for up to three weeks, giving them the opportunity to show employers what they can do and giving employers the opportunity to see whether people's skills are appropriate for the job that they are offering. That will ensure that many more round pegs go into round holes, rather than the mismatching that we have had in the past.
Restart courses help those who have been unemployed for two years. The jobfinder's grant covers additional expenses. That is most important because many unemployed people need such help, particularly after a long period of unemployment. There is also help for the short-term unemployed. We have already heard how important it is to help the short-term unemployed, to prevent them becoming the long-term unemployed. Job search seminars give practical advice to people unemployed for more than 13 weeks. The travel-to-interview scheme pays the cost of travel to interviews away from an applicant's immediate home area.
We have already heard of the many investors in people schemes. That must he good. Many of my manufacturers realise the importance of their work force and the training that they give them and they wish to retain that trained skilled work force. They put huge amounts of time, effort and money into those schemes.
We also have training and enterprise councils, although I am sometimes a little concerned about them. They have rather palatial offices with many jobs and I am not entirely convinced that they arc creating as many jobs outside as I would wish them to do. My hon. Friend the Minister might like to say a word or two on that. Any unemployment is unacceptable and I am delighted to see the reductions in the number of people unemployed since 1992. We now have 733,000 fewer people unemployed since that date.
When I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, there were 1,900 long-term unemployed in my constituency. That figure has now been halved. It is still too many, but it is always moving as some people become unemployed and others return to work, and it is moving in the right direction. Unemployment in my constituency now stands at 6.7 per cent., much less than in 1983.
Unemployment has fallen in the past 27 consecutive months, and we must all welcome that. It is also interesting to note that youth unemployment in July 1995 was 24 per cent. lower than that in January 1993. European Commission figures show that the United Kingdom has more people in employment and fewer people out of work than any other major European country. It is right that that should be well documented.
The community action programme was established in 1993 when the number of long-term unemployed was 28 per cent. higher than it is now. I understood that it was introduced for one year only and then extended. As I have already said, the public sector provides a considerable number and range of opportunities to help young and unemployed people.
Our own industries also provide training for their work forces. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles has a first-class successful training scheme, not just for young people but for people of all ages within its work force. That has produced many more NVQ and other qualifications in recent years. That is most welcome.
As the House will he aware, from April 1996, incentives for employers to take on someone who has been out of work for two years or more will be extended. Employers will be able to claim a full rebate of such people's national insurance contributions for up to 12 months. That will help many people back into work. It is suggested that the figure could be as much as 120,000—I would certainly welcome that.
Another measure that I have long wanted to see is that, from April 1996, full housing benefit will be extended for four weeks to people going back to work. All hon. Members have had cases where someone has been out of work, has had help with housing benefit, has got a job on Monday the first and has not been paid until Monday the 31st. How do such people manage during that period? We have a responsibility to help them take that job, but not he penalised by having one month's arrears of rent or mortgage at the end of that period. I welcome that measure whole-heartedly.
It is interesting that we are told that there are not very many jobs, yet the Yorkshire Evening Post, Yorkshire's daily newspaper, regularly has a billboard saying, "500 jobs today" or "600 jobs advertised today", so some jobs are available. I know someone who recently came back from Australia, having been there for 20 years, with no income—practically nothing. Within a week, however,


he had found himself a job, which was interesting. He did not know the system, but he went out, spent a week looking, and got a job.
Since coming to the House in 1983, I have taken a great interest in employment, investment, education and training, because they are closely linked. They are essential to UK plc's future and especially to our manufacturing industry, of which we have much in West Yorkshire.
As I have said, during the 1980s, manufacturing investment enabled us to achieve huge reductions in unemployment in my constituency of Batley and Spen. Between November 1986 and November 1987, unemployment dropped by 19 per cent. Between 1987 and 1988, it dropped by 27 per cent. and between 1988 and 1989, it dropped by 22 per cent. In the early 1990s, unemployment dropped by 13 and 5 per cent.
For the people involved, however, unemployment is individual. It is a traumatic time in their lives. They are not just a statistic. For them and their families, it means much heartache and grief about how they are going to manage, and the whole family suffers. Sometimes we become carried away with statistics and forget that we are speaking about individuals and their families, and we forget what a traumatic time it is for them.
In Yorkshire, there has been massive investment in industries. In my constituency, since 1984, well over £200 million has been invested in jobs, new processes, new technology, new factories—which are there for everyone to see—and of course training because what manufacturing company wants to invest a huge amount of money in a new factory, new technology and new equipment and then not bother with the work force? Many manufacturers say to me that the most important part of their business is their work force, because, without it, many of the machines, however clever, would not operate—of course, they realise that. If we had not invested in training, we would not be able to manufacture and export our high-quality goods around the world.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) insulted all people who have invested money in businesses. Suggesting that the only investment in the United Kingdom is in burger bars is outrageous. He should think carefully before making such a sweeping statement, especially as, if he went a little further around Yorkshire with some of his colleagues, he would see evidence of continuing massive investment.
We need to continue with training and education, but they must start in our schools, and continue with programmes and in our industries. We do not need to lecture industries about that. They know that and are already doing that work. The money that they have put into the investors in people schemes is a prime example. However, we also need to have retraining for people who become unemployed. Although everyone would mourn the loss of any scheme that comes for a short time and goes, the whole jigsaw of training, work and people is continually moving and, unless our response by way of programmes to that movement is continual, we shall become static and not gain the benefit.
In his winding-up speech, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say a word or two about how he sees the future of the TECs and encourage them to consider their budgets a little and to push a little more of that money into people's training.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: We all agree that this is an important debate; but we are discussing real, damaging cuts—not imaginary cuts—and I am staggered by the complacency of Conservative Members. Hearing the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wax lyrical about the enterprise culture, describing Britain as the enterprise capital of Europe, we can understand why the Tories are so far behind in the opinion polls: the simple reason is that they do not live in the real world inhabited by my constituents and by the majority of British people and their families.
The millions who are in work fear redundancy because companies have not invested in new technology, research and design and re-skilling programmes. Many parents would have been angered by the debate; they do not know what future their children have and whether they will make their way in the world. If there are no jobs, those children will have no prospects. As for the people who are unfortunate enough to he unemployed, they are confined to seeking temporary or part-time work involving low pay and long hours because of their lack of skills. That is a disgrace.
I do not believe there is such a thing as a one-nation Tory. Tories do not believe in society; they believe only in the development of the individual, and in a system based on greed, in which the big pussies can have fat pay cheques while the unemployed suffer cuts in benefit. The Tories have ceased to develop training programmes, and are attempting to create the illusion that everything is all right.
What is the Government's real motive for cutting training budgets? Could it be part of their economic strategy to keep a permanent pool of unemployed people to act as a stimulus to a low-wage economy? That is the Government's vision of Britain: they want to retain a divided society, so that they can claim some imagined success. Belatedly, some remorse has been shown by, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, who has called for a job skills audit. He has finally realised that Britain is slipping in the world prosperity league.
An alternative title for today's debate might be "The Waste of a Nation". The £20 billion that has been spent to keep people out of work could have been used to create real, permanent jobs. Every successful economy knows that, if success is to be maintained, there must be a structured and dynamic training and employment programme rather than stop-start schemes that merely massage the unemployment figures. There have been 32 changes in those figures. Even I could make unemployment apparently fall if I changed the calculation involved.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend find in his constituency, as I do in mine, that the very intonation with which young people utter the word "scheme" indicates the contempt that they feel for those devices for massaging the unemployment statistics'?

Mr. Sutcliffe: Those of us who come from manufacturing constituencies knew the routes to employment: we knew that there was a prospect of work. Nowadays, young people see not the prospect of work but meaningless schemes that do not develop their skills.
More than 3 million people in Britain are unemployed. and 750,000 have been out of work for 12 months or more. My city must create 700 jobs just to stand still—a


city with a proud manufacturing base that was decimated by the loss of 22,000 jobs in four years. Why have the Government something against manufacturing industry? As a consequence, they have destroyed many of our communities. The Secretary of State recognised that the north has been hit particularly badly.
In 1979, manufacturing represented 30 per cent. of gross domestic product; it now represents less than 20 per cent. We need only look at any industrial sector to see that the machinery for manufacturing is imported from our competitors in Europe or elsewhere in the world.
To cut the training budget as the Government have is to destroy the country's future. According to the survey, "Skill Needs in Britain", conducted at the Department's request, employers were concerned about the skills gap, and 21 per cent. of employers and companies with more than 25 employees thought that there was a significant gap between the skills possessed by their current work forces and those that they needed to meet their business objectives. Another study, conducted by the Business and Technology Education Council in August 1995, showed that 50 per cent. of firms employing more than 100 people thought that their profitability would be affected by skill shortages among very young workers. Out of the 21 countries in the OECD, the United Kingdom lags behind all but Turkey in the proportion of 17 and 18-year-olds in education. Currently, 180,000 17 and 18-year-olds are not receiving education, work or training. That is a national disgrace.
When the training and enterprise councils were set up, they took the money that would normally have gone to further education colleges and other provision through local authorities. The objective was to bring together public and private sector players, with the emphasis being placed on the high fliers in private sector chairing the TEC boards to provide business acumen to remove the shortfalls in the skills gap.
Bradford TEC has been very successful. It has a committed board that is determined to meet Bradford's needs, but in recent times the board has become frustrated as its resources have been reduced year by year. Its budget has been reduced by £1.8 million this year—a cut of 9.5 per cent. Incidentally, the training for work budget has been cut by 24 per cent., in a city with a rising population and above-average youth unemployment, especially among ethnic minority communities.
The Government have claimed radical change in the education and training sectors in the past 16 years, but the reality is different. They have created confusion on standards and they have depressed and sapped the morale of teachers, lecturers and training providers. Worst of all, they have thrown away all the golden opportunities given to them—for example, by North sea oil—to equip our country with a highly motivated, highly skilled work force capable of creating wealth, which would lead to investment and growth to revitalise Britain's economy.
The abolition of the community action programme will attack again the most vulnerable in our society. One in five households with a member of working age has nobody in work, compared with one in 12 in 1979. Those people have the right to work without the opportunity to work and that means that they have no stake in society. The community action programme had its critics, but it

was set up by the Chancellor in 1993 to offer work to 40,000 unemployed people, and it has been seen to he working. The Government have shown that they lack the will and the ambition to support and build up education and skills for life.
I suppose that at the end of this month we shall see another relaunch for the Prime Minister. Like the rest of the relaunches, it will not work because he is out of touch and the Government are out of touch. A society in which as many as one third of the people are marginalised and cut off from the opportunity to secure worthwhile employment is a society that squanders the potential of people and the resources of its economy.
What have the Government got against trade unions'? Why do they try to create conflict where it does not exist'? Forty-seven of the top 50 companies in this country have union agreements and organised trade unions. We see the benefits of work forces working with their managements to re-skill, to introduce new technologies and to develop the ability to work together; yet the Government are caught up in political dogma. The cuts in the training budgets are damaging and will affect people. The Government do not care about unemployed people: they care only about maintaining their aspiration to look after the top 10 per cent. of the country. I believe that we shall see the return of a Labour Government who will make a commitment to training for people and ensuring that we have a structured training environment.

Mr. David Evennett: I am delighted to participate in this important debate, but I do not want to follow the depressing example of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her excellent speech and on putting on the record the facts and figures on jobs, vacancies and the number of people participating in post- 16 training and education. It is a pity only that more hon. Members, especially from the Opposition, were not in the Chamber to hear those figures.
In today's fast-changing world, the speed of technological change has meant that training and education are even more important. Skills have to be updated in nearly all areas. For individuals to be able to meet today's challenges, there must be a change in the approach to education and training. The old idea of a job for life is, regrettably, no more. In addition, once qualified, people may have to be retrained. However, I welcome the many opportunities that our society offers today.
There are more opportunities for our people in training and education than ever before. I am appalled by Opposition Members and their depression. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was all doom and gloom. Opposition Members never acknowledge the vast opportunities for education, training and retraining that are available now to the vast majority of people. The tremendous opportunities of today were just never available in the past.
As the world of work changes, so too must education and training change. Of course the young and the unemployed must he our top priority, but so must those who want to upgrade their skills and advance their opportunities. It is not only the Government and the taxpayer who should provide training, however. The Government have an important role, but so do industry,


business and commerce—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I should like the private sector to do even more training and retraining.
The Government are to be congratulated on endeavouring to offer more opportunities and help to the young and the unemployed. The investment has been considerable: 1.5 million places in employment and training programmes in the public sector for the coming year. With the improving economic climate and falling unemployment, the future looks much brighter for people who are seeking work.
In my constituency and across the whole borough of Bexley local businesses feel increasingly optimistic about the economy. We are fortunate in having an excellent further education college. Bexley college, as it is now called, is primarily located in Erith; but under the successful leadership of Dr. Jim Healey and his team it has become a centre of excellence for education and training. The college's initiatives have helped to train and retrain many local people and given them the skills to assist them in their search for work.
It is vital that our education system equips our young people with the necessary foundations on which to build their careers and their lives. The education reforms of the past decade have tried to do just that. Apart from the introduction of the national curriculum, the publication of school results, testing and the increased amount of inspection of schools, much has also been achieved in vocational and technical education. There is no mention of these successes in the Opposition motion. Further training for specific jobs would be useless if the basic education had not been provided in the first place. At long last vocational qualifications of a high quality are being provided, and are increasingly accepted by employers, pupils and parents. GNVQs have at last won acceptance, which is very good news.
The greater independence of further education colleges such as Bexley college has allowed them to develop and to provide a wider variety of courses, thereby ensuring that the young, the not so young, the unemployed, and those who want to return to work after bringing up children can enrol in training courses, improve their qualifications and update their skills. That is vital to society and individuals alike. The work done by such colleges is to be commended. It is certainly valued by many people throughout the country.
I confess myself disappointed that the private sector does not do more training. Elsewhere, in America and Germany, private industry, commerce and business are much more geared to providing training and retraining for their work forces, and are prepared to sponsor more young people through college and university. I should like to see much more of the same here. Private organisations, as well as the Government. should do more training—a fact not mentioned by the Opposition because they believe the Government should do everything: the taxpayer should provide everything. I believe that there is a balance to be struck between the Government and the private sector, because it is essential for this country that we have a skilled, qualified work force.
There is much more to be done in the field of training, but we should also commend the good work that has already been achieved. I totally reject the Opposition's pretence that cuts in certain programmes will be the end of civilisation.

Mr. O'Hara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way'?

Mr. Evennett: I am afraid not, because I must leave time for the Front-Bench spokesmen.
Education and training are and must be at the forefront of an opportunity society. Economic success, low inflation, growth and an entrepreneurial approach are the keys to lasting jobs. We are after lasting, long-term jobs and not short-term, temporary ones. It can be terribly depressing for people who have been on a training scheme to get short-term work, only to find themselves back on the unemployed list. It is unfair; in fact, it is cruel. Our training should be aimed at long-term, worthwhile and vital jobs.
To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that the Government have abandoned all their training facilities, and advice and assistance to young people and those seeking work—whether young or not so young. That is ridiculous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described in great detail the training provisions and facilities that are being developed and are available for those who are unemployed or leaving school and college.
As well as training, the importance of assistance and practical help in finding work must be paramount. Jobseekers need help and advice, which they can often find at jobcentres. We have very good ones in Bexley where people regularly go and are given tremendous help. Job clubs, too, are vital in encouraging and helping people, especially with curriculum vitae, in gaining confidence and completing applications. As well as training in particular skills, people need help and advice. I welcome the opportunities available to help and advise people who are looking for work. Many of my hon. Friends have already cited the long list of available schemes for training and retraining and I shall not repeat them in view of the pressure on time.
The Government have achieved a great deal in education and training. An improving economy, education reforms and relevant training are the foundations for getting unemployed people back into work—whether young or not so young. In looking to the private sector to do more, we should encourage private sector companies to ensure that their workers are trained and retrained in the necessary skills.
As I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say, the most important part of the debate has been the fact that it has made it abundantly clear that the Opposition are totally bankrupt of any ideas about training or retraining. Of course they want to spend more taxpayers' money. They want to spend more on just about everything in their portfolios, although they do not like to admit it in public.
We want a good training and retraining programme—which I believe that we have—that will allow people to amend and update their skills and get long-term, worthwhile jobs.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I could scarcely believe my ears when the Secretary of State opted to


promote her case in the debate by taking a stand on the unemployment record of the past 15 years. One would never guess if one listened to the right hon. Lady that under Labour, unemployment scarcely ever rose above 1 million, whereas under the Tories unemployment has scarcely ever been below 2 million in the past 15 years.
One would never guess if one listened to the Secretary of State that there have been 25 or more changes in the unemployment figures, which according to the independent Library estimates, have added about 900,000 to the employment count. The real rate of unemployment is not 8 per cent. but probably nearer 11 per cent., and certainly one of the highest in Europe.
We were treated to a selective list of the worst black spots of unemployment abroad—while of course ignoring our own—amnesia, a re-writing of recent economic history in Britain and a cavalier dismissal of the central fact that, despite tiny falls in unemployment in recent months, unemployment remains. [Interruption.] This is the key point. Unemployment remains at an historical high, which is totally unacceptable.
The Secretary of State also said that the Government have given people rights and opportunities. I would say that the Government have done more to take away rights, stability and security than any Government since the 1930s. There has been a doubling in the number of those on low wages, a tripling in homelessness, 1 million people have been trapped in negative equity, and millions have been exposed to job insecurity caused by the Government's deregulation of the labour markets. Perhaps worst of all, 14 million people—a quarter of our entire population—are living on income support, which for an adult is just £46 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) rightly said, social and economic policies have generated welfare dependency. It is incredible that the Secretary of State should say that the biggest stake that people have in society is a job, when the Government's record on unemployment is worse than that of any other Government since the 1930s.
At the centre of the debate has been the serious and damaging overall cut in departmental expenditure and its impact particularly on training for the adult unemployed. Overall, the departmental budget will be cut by £150 million in the next financial year. If one compares next year's budget with what was previously planned, the cut is £430 million. At a time when education, training and employment are widely seen as the key to national recovery, those figures speak volumes about the Government's priorities.
The main burden of the cuts will fall on employment and training, which will lose up to £120 million as a result of reductions in the allocated budget, as the Government have admitted, of 4 per cent. The adult unemployed will bear the brunt of that cut. The original figure planned for expenditure on training for work in 1994–95 was £724 million. The planned figure for training for work next year—1996–97—was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech two months ago to be down to £488 million. Compared with the actual expenditure just two years ago, the planned expenditure on training for work in the coming year—and the outturn may well he lower—is being cut by no less than 30 per cent.
That provides a rather different impression from the bland and complacent excuse trotted out by the Secretary of State, that a 4 per cent. cut in employment and training programmes must he seen in the context of what Ministers rather coyly describe as a welcome 12 per cent. fall in long-term unemployment in the past year. Of course, as I made clear earlier, Ministers have a great deal to he coy about. The Secretary of State did not answer the point that I made earlier and she is not paying attention now, although I am not surprised because it is an extremely embarrassing point. The only reason for any fall in unemployment in the past three years is that the Government were forced, kicking and screaming, to abandon the exchange rate mechanism in September 1992. To quote the fall in long-term unemployment as justifying abandoning the community action programme or cutting other training programmes is irrelevant, because the fall in unemployment was wholly due to the lower interest rates and exchange rates that that permitted. It had nothing to do with the Government's employment and training programme.
Another reason why the Government's rationale for cuts in training and employment budgets is transparent and shabby is that it suggests that unemployment and skills shortages are problems that are well on the way to being satisfactorily resolved, so expenditure can be safely reduced. The truth is rather more sobering. The fall in unemployment is flattening out at the still extremely high level of 2.25 million—that is on the Government's account—which is 500,000 above the low point of the previous cycle, and there are still about 800,000 people who have been unemployed for more than a year. With the exception of the short-lived blip in 1989, unemployment in this country has not been below 2 million in the past 15 years. That is an appalling record and certainly does not warrant any let-up in programmes designed to reduce unemployment.
The idea that our training programmes are now so satisfactory that we can afford to reduce them is preposterous. The United Kingdom currently invests about 0.6 per cent. of GDP on labour market measures. Germany and France invest twice as much and many other European states invest even more. The UK would need to raise spending by £4 billion to £5 billion to come into line with the European average.
In many ways, the picture is even more stark. More than one in two workers in Germany hold vocational qualifications at craft level, whereas in Britain only one in five do. Two thirds of foremen in German manufacturing industry hold higher intermediary qualifications, whereas in the UK the figure is just 3 per cent.—one twentieth of the level in Germany. [Interruption.] Had the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). been present at the start of my speech, he would have heard me say that the House of Commons Library estimates that the real unemployment rate is well above the Government's 8 per cent. figure and probably nearer 11 per cent.
I could continue with such comparisons. Compared with that of our international competitors, our training record is still badly deficient and trailing. There is no justification for cutting our training budget against the background of such a large and prolonged shortfall in skills training. Evidence shows that the skills shortage is growing. In 1992, 5 per cent. of companies reported some hard-to-fill vacancies. In 1993, the figure was 6 per cent.


and in 1994, it was 11 per cent. In 1994, the "Skill Needs in Britain" survey showed that one person in five had no in-work training whatever. Moreover, an Industrial Society survey showed that, in the same year, employers spent only £380 a year on training per employee compared with £490 only 18 months before. Far from breaking through the skills training gap, the Government are compounding the slide in this country's skills training in the workplace by cutting the employment and training programme.
It is not just about money; it is also about the fundamental question of what existing training programmes really achieve. Training for work has largely become a job placement programme for people who are already job prepared, while few opportunities exist for those who are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made that point eloquently in his speech. The Government's current focus on job outputs within a short time scale inevitably discourages the recruitment of anyone who is not ready to go straight into a job. The result is that the extent of value added and of skills produced by that system is often negligible. As the Government say, improved job outcomes are being recorded, but less training activity is being delivered.
Provision for special training needs is in a bad way. Contracting for the special needs of adults is now undertaken largely to meet a numbers quota. Even specialist providers say that they can no longer afford to meet the requirements of people with special training needs. In addition, the voluntary sector providers who make available the majority of places for special training needs are being squeezed out of the training market, with substantial cuts in both income and places on adult and youth training programmes. As a result, programmes steer clear of the long-term unemployed and the special training needs population, who should be the most important customers of all. That, probably even more than money, is the central flaw in the Government's current training strategy.
The other key issue is that of money.

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Ah.

Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the Minister says, "Ah." Perhaps he is paying attention for once.
The money to deliver the output is simply not available. As a result, basic and higher skills training has been severely reduced, to the extent that in many areas it does not exist, even where there is labour market demand and skill shortages. A national survey of TECs carried out recently in my constituency of Oldham found that the number of places last year decreased by 21 per cent. compared with the previous year. I could go through the whole list—33 per cent. in Manchester and up to 34 per cent. in Barnsley and Doncaster. That has happened not just over the past year; funding has continuously declined for the past five years.
In that time, the budget for adult training has been halved, while the level of unemployment has marginally increased. In 1991, the budget for employment training, which was the forerunner of training for work, was just over £1 billion. Unemployment in that year was just under 2.3 million; last year it was, on average, slightly over 2.3 million. Yet the average payment per trainee has fallen, year on year. from £50 in 1992–93 to £28 last year.
I am even told that one provider who has had a contract since 1991 for the same provision shows that the contract price per trainee per week has been reduced from £84 to £30. It is impossible to provide a quality skills training programme with cuts on that scale.
The debate has exposed fundamental weaknesses and failings in Britain's current training system that Government policy, especially the continued funding cuts, has clearly exacerbated. Several radical changes are urgently needed. First, output-related funding dominates all other measures of performance. It is distorting the system away from providing longer-term skills and quality in favour of short-term jobs. Moreover, a successful outcome is assumed even if the job lasts only a week and irrespective of what sort of job is involved, how much is to be paid, and whether the person is to work full time, part time or whatever. The system needs to he dropped or at least radically changed.
It is also unacceptable that almost two thirds of youth trainees leave schemes before they end; half find no job at all; and another half have no qualifications to show for it when they leave training. We need a new criterion of performance that takes much more account of the qualifications gained.

Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am reluctant to give way because I have so little time. I do not intend to take more than a few minutes. There is an urgent need for stable funding—a point about which my hon. Friend waxed most eloquent, when he said that there is constant chopping and changing and great uncertainty in TEC budgets for that reason.
The Government's continually changing funding criteria for TECs make it difficult for them to plan ahead. Knowing the Government as we do, nobody was surprised when it emerged a few weeks ago that their latest wheeze for compensating for fresh cuts in the TECs budget was to start to fund special training needs courses from the national lottery.
I shall quote from a letter to the chief executive of the National Lottery Charities Board from the director of policy at the TEC National Council. It states:
The Earl of Stockton has provided my office with a copy of the correspondence between David Sieff"—
the Marks and Spencer chief who chairs the National Lottery Charities Board—
and himself concerning the possibilities of TECs working in partnership with local eligible organisations to develop programmes for re-skilling the disadvantaged that might be considered for grants from the National Lottery Charities Board.
One would have thought that even this Government would regard that as more of an eccentricity, or even a joke, than a serious policy.
Special training needs must be better safeguarded. Several options should be urgently considered, such as a separate programme for the most needy, ring-fencing of money for their training and greater concentration on basic skills training. One or other of those should be adopted.
Lastly—

Mr. Evennett: Hear, hear.

Mr. Meacher: I am taking less time than did some Conservative Members.
Lastly, we strongly deplore the premature closure of the community action programme, which offers 40,000 to 50,000 people a year work experience, individually tailored help with finding a job, work projects of benefit to the community that would not otherwise he done and priority access for people with disabilities. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said at the start of the debate, only a year ago the then Secretary of State for Employment announced that it would be extended for a further three years at a cost of £70 million a year. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government are now much more motivated to make savings for tax cuts than to preserve employment programmes, when even the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) of all people, regarded the programme as valuable enough to extend for another three years.
Improvement in the quality and coverage of training should be at centre stage for our national economic recovery. The Government have manifestly failed the nation in both the scale and quality of training provision, which still falls far short of that of our international competitors. If the Government's record and the wheedling excuses made for it by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are the best that they can do, the sooner the election throws them out, the better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Today's debate, albeit brief, has provided the House with a wonderful opportunity to highlight the contrast between the Government's successful and real policies to help the unemployed and promote training with the dearth of policy suggestions from the Labour party.
I shall start by examining the central issue of cuts in training in the Labour motion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said, in real terms there will he more money in the budgets for TEC programmes next year than there is this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have been cut."] There has been no cut in the overall amount of money for TEC programmes.

Mr. Blunkett: That is not true.

Mr. Paice: There has been no cut in real terms; rather, there has been a 5 per cent. increase in the overall amount of money for TEC programmes.
We are proposing to shift money between programmes because of the shifting priorities in the needs of the unemployed, because of the fall in unemployment and the increasing value and importance that are attached to modern apprenticeships, to which we are adding another £115 million. The Government have always recognised that we must catch up with the skill levels of our competitors, which was why we have concentrated on reforming the education and training system to deliver better results. We have merged the Department for Education and the Department of Employment, because we recognise that they go hand in hand in meeting the competitive challenge from the rest of the world.
We have achieved great things. More than 90 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in education and training. Almost one in three of our young people go on to higher education, compared to one in eight in 1979, and twice as many of them get A-levels as in 1979.
Of all the accusations and challenges that have been thrown at the Government by the Opposition this evening, the accusation that an approach has been made to use the lottery to fund training for special needs must he resolved immediately. The TEC National Council has already made it absolutely clear, publicly and for all to hear, that that accusation is totally without foundation. That fallacious story has arisen because the National Lottery Charities Board approached one TEC for the names of organisations that are involved in helping the disadvantaged.
I must confess that I was somewhat surprised when I heard that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would sum up for the Opposition. He has never made any secret of his disagreement with what, we are led to believe, is Labour party policy. In his remarks this evening, he referred critically to the deregulation of the labour market. One can assume from that that he opposes it, but I have heard absolutely no pledge from the Labour party in recent months that it intends to reverse the deregulation that we have carried out. The hon. Member for Oldharn, West has said:
Mrs. Thatcher's abiding achievement has been to turn the Opposition into a variation of the Government's theme.
He went on to say:
People want real change, not a paler shade of the same.
Only last month, the hon. Member for Oldham, West appeared on "Kilroy" and was challenged about Labour's proposal to give employers £60 a week to take on the long-term unemployed, while the long-term unemployed would receive only £45 in benefit. According to the Oldham Evening Chronicle, which I am led to believe is a learned journal, the hon. Gentleman's reply was:
Let me make it clear to you. I am embarrassed by that point.
Why is he on the Front Bench?
The intervention that the hon. Gentleman made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about our exit from the exchange rate mechanism begs another question: why is it that Italy, which came out of the ERM at the same time, has seen unemployment continue to rise while ours has been falling dramatically? Could it have more to do with the state of the labour market than the ERM?
The hon. Gentleman also referred to unemployment figures and suggested that the real ones were much higher than those which we announce. If that is so, why do the labour force survey figures, which we also announce regularly and which have gone along closely with the claimant count figures, meet the requirements of the International Labour Organisation, to which the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress have signed up?
A number of hon. Members have rightly emphasised the need for this country to improve and increase our training and to meet the national training targets. The Government have never made any secret of their intention to achieve that. I wish to deal with a misunderstanding—a fallacy—promoted by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) that programmes for the unemployed can, on their own, address the need to meet our training targets.
We should remember that only 3 per cent. of the work force are long-term unemployed—the figure is still too high, but it is 3 per cent. Some 92 per cent. of the work


force are in work. If we are to meet the targets for the year 2000, we shall do so by providing encouragement, exhortation and help to all the work force.
Business spends about £20 billion a year on training and education. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that the figure is £28 billion, but I shall settle for our figure of £20 billion. We must develop a culture that is based on better schooling and achievement in compulsory education through our education reforms. That process will lead to the understanding that training is, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, an investment, not a cost.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for suggesting that the private sector had been cutting training. That is a historical fact, but it has not been the experience of the recent recession, when training expenditure by the private sector held up far higher than in any previous recession. That demonstrates that the message is getting through to the employers that they must invest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) made what must be considered as one of the best speeches in the House for a long time when he emphasised the fall in unemployment and described in graphic detail the tremendous successes and developments of the Government's training policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) emphasised the varied needs of the unemployed. She also expressed concerns over TECs, particularly the cost of their administration and bureaucracy. All TECs must publish annual reports to highlight those figures and they must all hold annual public meetings where their staff are open to cross-examination by the people in the community. I am anxious that as many resources as possible are spent on training, not wasted on administration. TECs have a vital role to play in developing our training infrastructure and needs—as they have for the past few years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) rightly referred to the importance of sound, basic education and highlighted the independence of our further education colleges. One of the most exciting aspects of my job is when I travel around the country and college after college tells me of the wonderful success that it has made of independence.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Paice: Understandably, my hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear." I was privileged to visit the college in her constituency just before Christmas, and there people were very proud of the independence that the Government had given them.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that he wanted a serious debate on training. I do not know what happened to his intentions, because it did not materialise. He suggested that the country needs a high-skill economy, and we would entirely agree. It is absurd to suggest that we can compete, with a low-wage economy, with the countries of the far east. No one has pretended that we can do so.
What matters are unit labour costs. Those include non-wage costs. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the United Kingdom, non-wage labour costs in manufacturing are about 15 per cent. of unit labour costs.
In France they are 29 per cent., in Germany they are 24 per cent., in Spain they are 25 per cent. and, yes, even in Singapore they are 16.6 per cent.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned changes in our programmes and spoke about overnight cuts. Talk about overnight cuts sits ill in the mouth of the man who was Minister when the International Monetary Fund came in to administer cuts in this country.
We have not heard of any policies from the Labour party. We have heard nothing about the much-vaunted welfare to work programme. That, of course, is a programme about subsidies to employers. I am puzzled that the Opposition can propose a policy advocating subsidies to employers that seems to me to recognise that employment costs are a deterrent to employment, at the same time as they advocate policies that would lead to dramatic increases in the costs of employment. Those policies are the minimum wage, which the whole House knows will increase the costs of employment; the social chapter—

Mr. Meacher: The Minister does not know what the level will be.

Mr. Paice: If the level is not high enough to increase the cost of employment, it will not be much of a minimum wage, will it? Any minimum wage that increases wages, which I presume is the intention behind it, will increase costs and therefore reduce employment.
The social chapter would impose more potential costs on employers. Is it not odd that we have received no explanation of the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made to the Confederation of British Industry that he would not agree to any extra burden on employers, even though he would join the social chapter—as though he could pick and choose? Does not he realise, does not the hon. Member for Oldham, West understand, that the social chapter involves qualified majority voting? What wonderful system has the Labour party now invented that would prevent Britain being outvoted and saddled with job-destroying burdens?
We have heard nothing of the windfall tax, Labour's latest milch cow—a tax which, at the last count, was going to fund 11 different spending pledges, a £75 a week incentive for long-term unemployed people, child care provision, VAT relief to small business, an environmental task force and many other things, including, apparently, the removal of lead piping. The Leader of the Opposition advocates a programme of home insulation.
What a tax. What a con trick. Do not the Opposition understand that a principle of a windfall tax is that it is a once and for all tax? How will they fund those programmes in the following years?
What about the other Labour flagship, the training levy—another impost on employers because Labour knows best? Yet again, we find confusion. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said last year, when she was in charge:
We have concluded that the old levy/grant system is no longer appropriate".
We have heard no policy of substance tonight—no explanation of what stakeholder training might be. The Government have trebled the proportion of graduates. We have developed modern apprenticeships and we have


focused employers' responsibility for training through the investors in people initiative. We have abolished all the statutory levies and training boards and we have seen a rise in training volume and quality.
Yet we have been opposed at every turn—as least we were opposed until the Labour party realised that we were right. After 16 years, Labour now accepts that the levy will not work. How much longer will the minimum wage or the social chapter last before they, too, are consigned to the dustbin of Labour policies?
The Government remain committed to an effective training policy which we shall continue to deliver through TECs and the extra money that they shall receive next year. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 306.

Division No. 25]
[10.00


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Roseanna


Ashton, Joe
Dafis, Cynog


Austin-Walker, John
Darling, Alistair


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Byers, Stephen
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Church, Judith
Garrett, John


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hall, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hodge, Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hood, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Hara, Edward


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCrea, The Reverend William
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLeish, Henry
Smyth, The Reverend Martin (Belfast S)


McMaster, Gordon



McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maddock, Diana
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Timms, Stephen


Meacher, Michael
Tipping, Paddy






Touhig, Don
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Audrey


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. John Cummings and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Ms Ann Coffey.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Booth, Hartley
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Sir Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butler, Peter
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, Rt Hon William


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hannam, Sir John





Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heald, Oliver
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Hesettine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dord)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lett, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Sir Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Wafter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marlin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George 


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Derek Conway and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the fall in unemployment and rise in employment that have enabled more people to share in the benefits of economic growth; supports the Government's determination to give unemployed people the help they need to find work; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to raise standards of education and training and enhance the nation's competitiveness.

Algrade Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an extremely disturbing case involving the abuse and exploitation of handicapped people at a private care institution in my constituency by people who profess to be fundamentalist Christians.
This affair exposes serious shortcomings in the supervision of charities in Scotland; it shows that it can he far too easy for unscrupulous operators to misappropriate Department of Social Security funds; and it demonstrates that it is far too difficult for local authorities to ensure that handicapped people get proper care in such institutions.
The Algrade story is a major scandal, and the Minister must institute an urgent inquiry so that proper safeguards can be put into effect as soon as possible.
The Algrade home is near the village of Humble at the foot of the Lammermuir hills. The site was originally developed as a holiday village for children from Edinburgh, and from a distance it looks idyllic.
The Algrade trust was established in 1968 with the stated objective of providing for the
spiritual, physical and material welfare and education of the mentally handicapped".
The top priority given to spiritual welfare later turned out to be significant, and, I fear, sinister.
The home was registered under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for residential and day care, and in recent years there have been around 33 residents and 10 day attenders. Many of the residents went to Humble as children 30 years ago, and they have lived virtually all their lives at the home.
Families trusted the Algrade trust, and particularly the resident trustees, Miss Betty Waugh and Mrs. Rosa Frisby, to provide for the welfare of these handicapped young people. But I fear that things went badly wrong.
Over a period of years, the local social work authority, Lothian regional council, became more and more dissatisfied with the management at Algrade. The council tried to persuade the trust to improve its care arrangements, but the social work department ran into fierce resistance from the trustees, particularly Miss Waugh and Mrs. Frisby, who claimed that they had guidance from a superior, divine authority.
In 1984, the council became so concerned about poor standards of care and management, and inadequate and inappropriate staffing, that drastic action had to be taken. The council's ultimate power was to withdraw the Algrade home's registration under the Social Work (Scotland) Act, but there was a risk that the trust could carry on regardless by claiming housing benefit for its residents instead of DSS funding.
That course of action was actually threatened by Mr. John White, who had joined the Algrade team as an adviser in 1987. I understand that Mr. White has recently folded his Care Management Advisory Service company, and that his record elsewhere includes an incident in which an old lady was scalded to death in a bath in a


home that he owned. He subsequently claimed that the fact that she had a private bath was proof of the quality of her care. The man seems to be a complete chancer, and a callous one at that. He is still operating the Grey Tree trust in Ross-on-Wye, with substantial funding from the Home Office. The authorities should check on all his affairs thoroughly.
Returning to Algrade, Lothian regional council was in a difficult position. Even if it could have closed the Algrade operation, it would not have had the resources to provide alternative care and accommodation for the residents. Nevertheless, further pressure on the trust, including reports to the police and to the Scottish Charities Office, led to the resignation of the old trustees, the appointment of new trustees, the transfer of the management of the home to the Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of Scotland, and, finally, the transfer of the residents to better accommodation made available by the council at Inveresk.
Lothian regional council and the Church of Scotland have fulfilled their responsibilities fully and in difficult circumstances, with precious little help from the Scottish Charities Office. I tabled parliamentary questions in July and November last year, and the replies from the Lord Advocate and the Minister were hopelessly unsatisfactory. We are still waiting for action to deal with serious financial irregularities in the Algrade trust—and remember: the DSS has been paying more than £400,000 a year to that thoroughly dodgy organisation.
It is important that the House and the Minister should understand just how awful the position at Algrade had become. We are not discussing minor lapses or mistakes. This has been a story of serious exploitation, abuse and fraud.
For a start, the accommodation was dreadful. When I visited Humbie just after the management was taken over by Church of Scotland social workers last year, I saw primitive conditions, inadequate and probably dangerous electric wiring, and pitiful heating. In February 1994, Lothian regional council found that the temperature in the living accommodation was just 6 deg C, well below the statutory minimum for places of work. It is a mercy that the residents were moved into better housing before the big freeze at the end of December 1995.
The catering was basic, to put it mildly. I understand that the trust took advantage of the free European Community surplus food scheme to put £50,000-worth of horsemeat on residents' plates over five years—at least, we presume it was horsemeat; the residents described it as pony.
The trust's outlandish religious culture was probably the main priority, and the handicapped residents were manipulated shamelessly. Those who did not comply could be subjected to cruel punishments, and there are even more serious allegations of sexual abuse by a senior carer who worked at Humbie for 10 years. Amazingly, he was protected by the original trustees.
Staffing at the home was, at best, inadequate. One of the oddest features of this operation was its ability to spend such a low proportion of its income on the care of its residents. Although Mr. John White was maximising the trust's claim for DSS and other funding to more than £420,000 a year, the trust's expenditure on staffing was just £36,000 a year. Spending on staff usually accounts for about 70 per cent. of care home budgets, but at Algrade the figure was 10 per cent., so staff costs were extraordinarily cheap.
Expenditure on food must have been pretty low, too, with all that free EC horsemeat or whatever. We know that heating costs must have been minimal, that the residents had little pocket money, and that there is no evidence of investment in the buildings at Humble, so where did all the money go?
I believe that large sums of money that should have been spent on the care of handicapped people have been diverted into the former trustees' religious organisation, and into property that now belongs to individual former trustees. I understand that about 17 properties, worth about £2 million, in and around the village of Pathhead may have been acquired in that way. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who represents Pathhead, is present. That property in Pathhead includes the high street café, which is exotically named, "The Video and Satellite Ministry".
That "Ministry" seems to be a combination of the former trustees' brand of fundamentalism and material beamed from kindred spirits in the United States of America. When I visited the café last year, my main concern was for a group of handicapped young people from the Humbie home who were working in the cafe clad in absurd tartan uniforms. The ex-trustee who met me there, Mrs. Frisby, had obviously prompted them carefully and effectively to tell me that they wanted to return to the care of the former regime at Algrade. She went further. She cited divine guidance for her mission. Those "helpers"—I understand that they were paid £5 for a seven-day week—seem to be vulnerable people, who are being exploited and manipulated.
Apart from milking their handicapped residents' DSS funding, the former trustees used other tactics. I have now seen evidence that a blind elderly relative of a day attender was bamboozled into signing a will leaving his house to Miss Waugh, and there are more stories about wills and unconventional property conveyancing that deserve attention.
All that has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity and "spiritual welfare", which is shameful; it has also been done by a registered Scottish charity with substantial funding from the DSS, which is intolerable. I pay tribute to Lothian regional council for its vigilance and persistence, which has led to the removal of the previous trustees and the provision of better care and accommodation for those 33 handicapped people.
That must not be the end of the story, however. About £2 million of public money intended for the care of handicapped people has apparently been pocketed by the trust or embezzled by former trustees. That money must be recovered and made available for its original purpose. I want to know why the Scottish Charities Office, which has had plenty of information about the affair for 14 months, has still taken no action.
I submit that either the DSS or local authorities should be able to audit and, if necessary, directly control money paid to private care agencies, of which there are now a good many. Moreover, this outrageous story includes a number of allegations of criminal offences: such offences should lead to prosecutions.
The people who have suffered neglect, exploitation and worse at the hands of the Algrade trust are entitled to expect appropriate action and fair compensation. It is imperative for lessons to be learned from this affair, to ensure that nothing like it can happen again anywhere in


Britain. I appeal to the Minister to consider the matter carefully, and also to study further evidence that will appear in the BBC's "Frontline Scotland" programme on Thursday. I am grateful for the BBC's help in researching the affair, and to the Edinburgh Evening News, which has also taken an interest in it over the past year.
I appreciate that the Minister may not be in a position to announce specific action tonight, but I trust that he will accept that the Government have a duty to deal with a scandal of such proportions.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief, but I wish to identify myself with this affair, because Pathhead is in my constituency.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on raising this terrible matter. Constituents in Pathhead drew my attention to it, fearing a gradual takeover of the village following the organisation's purchase of houses: they were afraid that it would be institutionalised under the auspices of the Algrade trust. The exploitation of the youngsters in the café was also drawn to our attention; what we did not know about was the abuse and cruelty meted out to handicapped children. That must be the greatest fear of the parents and grandparents of such children.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian that an in-depth inquiry is the only way in which to satisfy the public and those representing them here. If criminal charges result from accusations of sexual assault, the cases concerned should go to trial. The misappropriation of funds must also be investigated, and the activities of the misguided religious zealots must cease immediately.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his success in securing this debate. I welcome this opportunity provided by him to set out the position on the Algrade trust and the action which has been taken. I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke).
The Algrade home at Humbie in East Lothian opened in 1968 as a residential school for children with learning difficulties. It developed into providing accommodation also for adults, many of whom had been educated at Algrade. When it was established, it was well regarded by many residents, parents and independent parties. As a consequence, it was popular, and places in the home were sought after.
The home had charitable status, and was run by a group of trustees. Until mid-1995, it was run by its founding trustees. In 1982, the home was approved to provide 44 residential places and 70 day care places, but there has been a gradual reduction in the numbers, so that latterly Algrade provided accommodation for 33 adults.
As a social work establishment, Algrade was registered with the relevant social work authority—Lothian regional council—for most of its history. Thorough and regular inspections were carried out from the late 1980s, and

shortcomings were identified. These shortcomings related to management arrangements, staffing, the form of care, and general standards within the home. Meetings were held between the social work department and the trustees to discuss and agree on improvements. On each occasion, the trustees undertook to make the necessary improvements, but this did not always happen. Some improvements were made, hut other points had to he returned to regularly.
In the 1990s, the concern of the registering authority increased, and serious concerns were reported by the social work department to Lothian social work committee.
In August 1993, Lothian social work authority decided that no further admissions should be made to Algrade. In September, the social work authority informed the chairman that one of the founding trustees should cease to have any involvement in the management of Algrade. She did not step down as asked. In 1994 the social work authority made a number of inspections, some unannounced, and held meetings with the trustees in order to keep a close eye on the implementation of recommendations for the improvement of the running of the home.
In October 1994, following further inspection, the social work authority gave notice to the board of trustees that the property could not continue to be used as a residential home. The reason was that the premises did not meet the necessary requirements. The building was not wind and watertight, and there were signs of damp in all the buildings. The heating was inadequate, and, in the winter months, temperatures were unacceptably low. Food storage and eating arrangements were unsatisfactory. There was also concern about the management, which had failed to comply with requirements.
In view of the importance of improving the management arrangements for the home, the social work authority approached the Church of Scotland, which very nobly agreed to take on the management of the home. This it did in October 1994.
I express my thanks to the Church of Scotland for stepping into this most difficult situation, for which it was in no way responsible. It placed its experience at the disposal of the trustees in order to bring about very necessary improvements. The new trustees are now responsible for the management of Algrade, and I have full confidence in their commitment and competence.
The Church of Scotland set as its main priority finding alternative accommodation for the residents. Many were attached to the community in Humbie, and had built up local friendships. However, it was important that their living conditions should be of a good standard.
The social work authority identified Wedderburn house in Musselburgh as a suitable temporary alternative. It was formerly a residential home for adults with learning difficulties, and was owned by the council. The regional council proposed to lease Wedderburn house to the trustees of the Algrade trust at a peppercorn rent of £1 a year. The Secretary of State's consent to this was received within a week of the proposal from the regional council.
The region's property committee gave its approval three weeks later. Some refurbishment was required, and the residents moved into their new home on 19 December 1995. Wedderburn house will now provide a home for the former residents of Algrade, for up to two years. In this


time, discussions will take place between the social work department and the trustees about more permanent accommodation arrangements.
The social work authority was also concerned about the arrangements for administering and looking after the money of residents at Algrade. The director of social work submitted a report to the Scottish Charities Office in October 1994. This was its first involvement. The Scottish Charities Office is a division of the Crown Office, established in 1992 and responsible for the supervision of charities and charities legislation. This legislation allows the Lord Advocate to make inquiries into concerns about misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities.
The report from the director of social work was not sufficient on its own to found a case. The Scottish Charities Office therefore initiated its own investigation. The allegations are complex, and are being investigated in detail by the Scottish Charities Office. Following the initiation of the investigation, the original trustees resigned, and, as I said, have been replaced by new trustees.
I pay tribute again to the new trustees, who have backgrounds in teaching, accountancy and medicine. They have taken on a difficult situation, and are already in discussion with the social work department, parents and guardians of residents. The new trustees have also been working with the Scottish Charities Office in its investigation of the previous administration.
The intervention of the Scottish Charities Office demonstrates our new charities legislation in action. It has allowed the charity to continue to function in the interests of those it looks after. It has saved the charity, in the best interests of its beneficiaries. It is investigating the allegations fully and fairly, in the interests of justice for the trustees. It would be wrong for me to comment further on the possible outcome of an investigation that is still in hand. If the hon. Member for East Lothian has evidence of fraud or embezzlement, he should send it to the proper authorities—in this case, the Lord Advocate—as a matter of duty.
On account of the complexities, the matters have been taking some time, but the resources of the Scottish Charities Office are sufficient for the work load. I am satisfied that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the supervision of charities legislation.
I turn to the allegations of sexual and other abuse.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I answer some of the other points made by the hon. Gentleman? He can intervene later.
We regard the allegations of sexual and other abuse as very serious. I understand that, in October 1994, a resident made an allegation of sexual abuse against a male member of staff. The police investigated it and interviewed the member of staff concerned. The resident, however, withdrew the allegation, and the police had no basis on which to take forward the case.
More recently, as the residents have got used to the new arrangements and their confidence in the new Church of Scotland staff has grown. they have started to talk about their experiences, and eight complaints have been made about the same member of the former staff who was

concerned in the earlier allegation. The police arc now investigating those complaints through their women and children unit, and are treating the complaints seriously. The member of staff ceased working there in October 1994.
The residents have also made other allegations of a serious nature. Those include physical abuse, being made to stand out of doors at night in underwear as a form of punishment, and the expression of concern about aspects of their diets. There has also been a complaint that the father of a man attending on a day basis at Algrade was pressurised to alter his will, linking it to the arrangements for the future long-term care of his son.
All those complaints are being investigated by Lothian and Borders police, who are working closely with the Scottish Charities Office, Lothian region social work department and, of course, the Church of Scotland. As all the allegations are under investigation, it would be wrong for me to comment on them.
The present position is that there are new trustees, new management in the form of the Church of Scotland, and new premises at Wedderburn house. Investigations are being pursued into allegations of sexual abuse and fraud. We are anxious to see what lessons need to be learned. In particular, I am asking the chief inspector of social work to visit the Church of Scotland so that we may learn what lessons its members think could usefully be learned in the light of their current responsibility for the residents,
I turn to the general issues raised by the case. As I have already said, we do not yet know fully what lessons may be learned. We are, however, clear about the importance of the inspection and registration function of local authorities in detecting and dealing with any problems which may arise in residential care homes. The Secretary of State is about to issue guidance to all authorities, particularly aimed at the new authorities, on their statutory responsibilities for inspection. It describes the key tasks to be carried out, giving particular attention to the issues that may be raised following reorganisation.
In addition, a Scottish Office internal working party, which includes full representation of outside interests, including the Church of Scotland, is discussing possible changes in registration arrangements for residential care homes. That working party reflects the issues raised with certain residential care homes and nursing homes for elderly people, but its remit extends more widely. It will certainly take account of any lessons which may be learned from Algrade. The group will be making recommendations to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very shortly. It might be helpful if I set out the current arrangements.
Local authorities are required to register private and voluntary residential homes. Registration is required where the whole or a substantial part of an establishment's function is to provide personal care or support as part of a planned programme.
As part of the overall responsibility for maintaining standards, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 identifies three main aspects to which an authority should give particular consideration. Those who own and control an establishment should be "fit" persons to carry on the establishment; the premises should be "fit" for the purpose for which they are registered and the level and experience of the staffing should be appropriate; and registration should have regard to the way in which care is provided.
Authorities may refuse, or cancel, registration where these, or similar, conditions of registration imposed by authorities under the 1968 Act are not satisfied. An authority may thus close a home if it is unsatisfactory. This is a power which has to be used with care.
In order to ensure that standards of care are maintained on an on-going basis at a sufficiently high level following initial registration, local authorities have powers to inspect establishments with regard to the condition and management of the establishment as well as the care provided. Guidance issued by the Scottish Office indicates that it is for authorities to determine the frequency of inspections. It recommends that two per year should be seen as the minimum for normal circumstances, and suggests that at least one inspection should be undertaken without notice.

Mr. Home Robertson: If the Minister had been in a position to follow the case as I have over the past year, he would understand that the local authority has been doing its level best to deal with the situation for a long time, but has not had proper powers. The Minister is saying that it is open to the local authority to withdraw registration. I invite him to address my point about the fact that the former trustees threatened to do without registration, and simply to put the residents on to housing benefit instead, which is a way of driving a coach and horses through the controls.
How long will it take the Scottish Charities Office? It has had information about the odd accounting practices of the former trustees for 14 months. How much longer?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can answer those points. A number of inquiries are currently in progress. The first is being conducted by the Scottish Charities Office into the conduct of the previous trustees and administration. A full report has been prepared by an accountant on the financial issues relating to the administration, which go back a long way. That is expected to be in the hands of the Scottish Charities Office very shortly, and will leave the way open for a conclusion to the matter before very long.
The second investigation is being conducted by the police into allegations of sexual abuse. In addition, a Scottish Office working party is looking at registration procedures. That should provide a stronger registration and inspection process in due course. We are thus taking all these problems seriously, but I do not think that any additional inquiry is needed.

Mr. Home Robertson: What about housing benefit?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The accountant will cover thoroughly all the matters relating to the accounts

of the administration. We would he extremely dissatisfied if he did anything less, and I have every confidence that he will do that.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, I must tell him that we consider the problem that he has raised as very serious. I share his concern. Action has been taken. The Scottish Charities Office has intervened effectively, and will continue to do so. There are new trustees and new management. The residents have been moved to new premises. Investigations are in progress. We must learn the necessary lessons, and I will keep the hon. Gentleman in touch with what is going on.
I warmly congratulate the Church of Scotland on its action in this matter, which has been of great benefit to those directly concerned.

Mr. Home Robertson: I invite the Minister to address the second question that I put to him. It was wide open to these people to sidestep the whole registration procedure by simply opting out of the social work part of the process and claiming housing benefit. That was a threat. Will he do anything to block that loophole?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into the hon. Gentleman's point and write to him.
On a slightly different point, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that a Scottish Office working party is looking thoroughly at the registration procedures. It will reach an outcome and make recommendations to the Secretary of State before long.
The point raised by the hon. Gentleman may well he covered in the accountant's report, which is expected this week along with—

Mr. Home Robertson: indicated dissent.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he does not know what is in the accountant's report. It has not been presented to me. It is about to be presented to the Scottish Charities Office. His point may well he covered. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
This is a serious matter, and I am extremely grateful to the Church of Scotland, which has acted in a selfless and dedicated manner in the best interests of those who were looked after—perhaps that is the wrong expression—those who were in the home. That is wholly to its credit. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this matter.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.